Preamble

The House met at Ten o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

CONTROL OF SEWAGE

10.5 a.m.

Mr. John Cordle: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to deal with the danger to public health caused by lack of control over sewage round the coast-line and the fouling of beaches.
This is a matter of urgency and priority and one about which the country as a whole is gravely concerned. The whole nation—indeed, many people outside this country as well—have been shocked and horrified at the pollution of our beaches —and, now, of French beaches, too—with oil from the "Torrey Canyon". The Government claim not to have been inhibited by financial or legal considerations in taking whatever action has been necessary to put the matter right. Unfortunately, both financial and legal considerations have inhibited Governments and local authorities of all political persuasions from taking long overdue action to rid our beaches and coastline of foul, stinking sewage.
I am happy to say that this is not a problem in my constituency, although I say at once that there are many seaside local authorities which are mindful of their duty and which have first-class sewerage schemes to either process their sewage completely on land or to process it and dump it far out to sea. Unfortunately, while they may be exemplary in this matter, their next-door neighbours along the coast, through ignorance, apathy or meanness, may be gaily pumping sewage out untreated so that it fouls the whole stretch of coastline.
As far back as 1953 the Government set up a committee of the Public Health Laboratory Service to look into the health problems of the contamination of beaches and bathing waters by sewage. Six years later that committee's Report was pub-

lished. Its main conclusion was that coastal pollution was not a danger to health. However, the report has been criticised by many medical men since then and by such organisations as the Royal Society of Health and the British Medical Association. I am not competent to pronounce on such technical matters, but as a parent, I know of certain parts of our coastline where I would not permit my children to play, let alone bathe, on the beach because of the heavy concentration of human excreta.
In July, 1960 the then Opposition initiated a debate on the whole problem. The right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), now the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, opened the debate by calling for an action programme including the acceptance of a national standard for a decent beach. Replying to the debate, the then Minister of Housing and Local Government admitted that we had many years of neglect to overtake. That was seven years ago and the position today is far from satisfactory.
The Coastal Anti-Pollution League has done tireless and persistent work in trying to clean up our beaches. It sent a questionnaire to coastal local authorities as long ago as 1959. From the replies of 116 authorities, it was clear that a large number of beaches ran a high risk of being fouled by sewage. In 1965, the Minister of Housing and Local Government sent out a similar questionnaire to all coastal authorities. A year later, after the answers had been analysed, he told the Institute of Sewage Purification conference:
A majority are satisfactory, but I must say that if a number of these health resorts feel satisfied with their present arrangements as described to me, I certainly am not".
The right hon. Gentleman went on to promise that there would be no difficulty about loan sanctions for any coastal sewerage scheme which was demonstrably and urgently needed, provided it was efficiently and economically designed. Only three weeks ago the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government told my hon. Friend the Member for Rye (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine) that the Minister would continue to urge the need for action on those local authorities which needed to improve their sewerage arrangements.
Having sketched in the background, I will briefly outline the ways in which sewage can be disposed of from a coastal town. The first, and usually the most expensive method is the complete treatment of sewage to Royal Commission standard and discharge of pure effluent into a river or into the sea in the same way as the vast majority of inland authorities treat their sewage. The second method is where really long outfalls are sited, and untreated sewage is discharged at all states of the tide. The third method is where the sewage is sited, partially treated or retained during unfavourable states of the tide and then discharged in short outfalls into the sea.
All these methods are usually satisfactory to a greater or less degree, but some authorities are discharging untreated sewage at all states of the tide either direct on to a beach or through very short out-falls just into the sea. Because of advances in techniques in breaking down sewage, and advances we have learned from the oil men in laying submarine pipelines, there is no reason why any local authority should not be able properly to dispose of the sewage and keep our coastlines clean.
I am convinced, notwithstanding the earlier Government Report, that masses of untreated sewage on our beaches and in our bathing areas are a menace to health. I am reinforced in that view by the fact that many coastal authorities have orders in force under the Public Health (Shellfish) Regulations 1934 and the Public Health (Regulation as to Food) Act, 1907, prohibiting the collection and sale of shellfish due to the pressure of untreated sewage in the area. If it is unhealthy for cockles and whelks, I would have thought that it would be unhealthy for homo sapiens.
My Bill seeks to deal with those few authorities who are unwilling or unable to raise their standards to that of the. majority. It would provide for a national standard of clean beach and offshore water. It would give the Minister power to advise local authorities that their sewage disposal plants were inadequate and, in the last resort, direct them to bring their plants and methods up to an acceptable standard. It seems only wise and proper that until such improvements have been made all beaches that are polluted

or liable to pollution should be required to have warning notices at frequent intervals advising the public that the beaches are potentially dangerous.
I hope and believe that these powers will not be necessary. A dose of good publicity, coupled with some prosecutions under Section 14 of the Public Health Act, 1946, might have the desired effect, and none would be happier than myself if it had. But the selfish few are letting down the responsible many. We have been talking about the problem for far too long. The Minister said last year:
We cannot tolerate this disgrace to our beaches any longer.
It is in that spirit that I beg leave to introduce my Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Cordle, Mr. Randall, Mr. Stainton, Mr. Kenneth Lewis, Sir G. Sinclair, Dr. Bennett, Mr. Wilkins, Sir H. Harrison, Mr. Gower, Mr. Patrick Jenkin, Mr. Corfield, and Mr. Lubbock.

CONTROL OF SEWAGE

Bill to deal with the danger to public health caused by lack of control over sewage round the coast-line and the fouling of beaches, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 30th June, and to be printed. [Bill 241.]

FINANCE BILLS

Mr. Speaker: Before I call on the Leader of the House to move the Motion standing in his name, I think that it would be convenient for the House if we were to have a general debate on the Motion and on the two Amendments standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). I am prepared, of course, to allow Divisions on each of the two Amendments.

Mr. F. Blackburn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are we to take it that this is a new debate, or is it a continuation of the debate previously held?

Mr. Speaker: I should imagine that it is a new debate. We debated last week


a mass of procedural Resolutions together, this one among others. I imagine now that this is a new debate. If the hon. Member has it in mind whether he has a right to speak—is that the point he has in mind?

Mr. Blackburn: It was not that that I had in mind, Mr. Speaker. What I had in mind was whether anyone who spoke in the previous debate would have any right to speak again this morning, except for the Leader of the House to move the Motion formally.

Mr. Speaker: I did not realise that the hon. Gentleman was being so noble. I wrongly thought that he was thinking only on himself, I am sorry. I do rule that hon. and right hon. Members who spoke in the general procedural debate, which included this Motion, may speak in this debate.

Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames): On that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understood your Ruling to indicate that if I were fortunate

That, during the remainder of the Session, where, in respect of a bill for imposing, renewing, varying or repealing any charge upon the people, either


5
(a) Mr Speaker has been informed that no general agreement to allot a specified number of days or portions of days to the consideration of the Bill in Committee 5 or on report has been reached, or


(b) any general agreement of which Mr Speaker has been informed is, in the opinion of a Minister of the Crown, working ineffectively.


10
a motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown that the Business Committee shall make recommendations to the House as to the number of days or portions of days to be 10 allotted to the consideration of the bill in committee, on report or on third reading, and as to the time by which proceedings on any parts into which they may divide the bill shall be brought to a conclusion in committee or on report and any further recommendations which may in their opinion be necessary to ensure the bringing to a conclusion of the proceedings on the parts of the bill allotted to those days or portions of days; and 15


15
the question on such a motion shall be put not more than two hours after the commencement of proceedings thereon:



That for the purposes of this Order the Business Committee shall consist of the Chairmen's Panel together with not more than five other Members to be nominated by Mr Speaker:


20
That, when the Business Committee shall have reported the resolution or resolutions containing their recommendations to the House, the provisions of sub-paragraph (c) of Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) shall apply to the proceedings on any motions for the consideration of such report and on the consideration of the said report.

In speaking to this, the main Motion, which are, of course, interesting and I will, if I may, make only some very brief anticipatory comment on the two Amendments, and would like to reserve the rest of what I have to say, if I get your permission to do so, Mr. Speaker, to the end of the debate, when perhaps I may be permitted to pick up some of the points the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) makes on his Amendments,

enough to catch your eye on the main Motion, I should be able to deploy the arguments in support of the two Amendments standing in my name, which you have been good enough to say you have selected, and that then, if so desired, a Division could take place on them subsequent to the decision on the main Motion?

Mr. Speaker: Not subsequent to the decision on the main Motion. If the main Motion were carried, the right hon. Gentleman's two Amendments would fall to the ground. Divisions on the Amendments would be prior to the decision on the main Motion.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: You intend to put my Amendments prior to the main Motion, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Yes.

10.16 a.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman): I beg to move,

Which are, of course interesting and important.

Perhaps I might first remind the House that during the course of last Wednesday's debate we discussed all the Reports, but when the Question was put after 9.30 there were evidently some hon. Members who thought that this Motion had not been discussed enough and exercised their right to cry "Object".


I am pleased that they did so if there are any points that are still unclear in what I regard as an extremely important Motion and one that should be discussed fully, and I will try to answer those points in this debate.

I have taken the opportunity to re-read the OFFICIAL REPORT and I will try not to repeat what was said last time, but rather to take up points that did not seem adequately covered. The House will be conversant with what we said in the last debate. When I re-read the OFFICIAL REPORT, what struck me was that there seemed to be very little disagreement on this side about the desirability of trying this Sessional experiment. There seemed to be agreement between the Front Benches and back benches on this side that we should try the experiment. Many of our supporters wanted to go much further. They did not agree with the Motion altogether, but agreed it as a compromise with the objective of achieving an advance agreed by the two sides of the House. The disagreement seemed to me to be almost entirely among hon. and right hon. Members opposite, and I do not want to intervene this morning any longer than necessary while they argue out their differences. I think, however, that it would be worth saying one or two things, and perhaps, in order to clear up any misunderstanding, to summarise the nature of the proposal.

The proposal is a simple but ingenious adaptation of our Standing Order 43(b). Under this Standing Order, if the usual channels can agree an overall allocation of time for the Committee stage of a Bill, the Business Committee may allocate the time between the various parts of the Bill. So far as I know, this paragraph of the Standing Order has never been formally invoked in modern times, but I suspect that its very existence may have conduced to the informal arrangements about Committee stages with which many of us are familiar, and which hon. and right hon. Members opposite have described as a kind of informal voluntary arrangement.

The Motion starts from the supposition that it ought to be possible to agree for each Finance Bill a number of days' discussion in Committee ending at an agreed time each night. I do not talk

here about perfection—as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) pointed out something might blow up one night and we might go on for a couple of hours—but, broadly, to agree and get through without the arduous burdens we have had and, indeed, without the decrease in prestige which our performance often causes outside the House. This ought to be the case, and if such an arrangement can be arrived at there will be no occasion to use what I described in last Wednesday's debate as "reserve powers", but which I will now call "safeguards" because that word is preferable to hon. Members—the safeguards enshrined in the Motion.

I come to the safeguards. If there is no such agreement, or if the agreement has not been honoured, it will be open to the Government to set in motion a formal procedure. After preliminary notification to you, Mr. Speaker, they will be able to propose that the Business Committee should recommend an overall allocation of time. That Motion would be debatable for two hours, and when the Business Committee reported back its recommendations would be put without further debate. All this would be strictly carrying out the unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee on Procedure.

I emphasise that this unanimous proposal of the Committee was not something for which many members of the Committee would have voted on its merits. Most of the members wanted something different. Our hon. Members wanted to send the Bill upstairs, and I am still convinced that in due course the House will come to the conviction that the right thing to do with the Finance Bill is to send it to a Special Committee upstairs. I am, however, prepared, for the sake of reaching agreed progress, to listen carefully to all that the Select Committee or the House says.

We have argued this out for hours, and we have seen the pros and cons. We believe that it is worth trying this experimental procedure this Session as a voluntary agreement with a safeguard. All the members of the Committee regarded the balance between the rights of the Government and the rights of the Opposition as duly worked out in this proposal, but it still remained that some members of the Committee thought that


the Bill should be split, and that part should go upstairs and that part should be dealt with here. Some hon. Members wanted to retain things roughly as they are, and the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames wanted to keep the mailer voluntary.

I take the speech of the right hon. Member on Wednesday last as a fair indication, and as a considered and experienced view of those who are seriously alarmed about the proposal. I accept that he is seriously concerned, and I have to meet that serious concern this morning. I frankly tell the right hon. Gentleman that I shall try to persuade him not to have this matter put to a vote, but to accept my arguments and to see the advantage of trying the experiment this Session.

There would be serious disadvantages to him and to the House if we could not agree on a unanimous proposal by the Select Committee on Procedure. If the House cannot go forward on unanimous recommendations of its own Select Committee, the rate of progress we are likely to achieve in procedural reform is very disappointing. I find this extremely important, and I am glad of the opportunity to ask the right hon. Gentleman to see whether he and I can reach a considered agreement, conscientiously agreeing about what we should do.

In his speech, columns 626 and 627 of the OFFICIAL REPORT are key passages. On a number of points, I believe that he and I entirely agree. We agree that we should have voluntary agreements. We are both agreed that that would make progress. This is all agreed between the two sides. Disagreement starts only when we have found a method of reaching a voluntary agreement with the necessary safeguard to ensure that it is carried out.

On this point, we ought to look carefully at the words the right hon. Gentleman used. He said:
All Parliamentary procedure is, in a way, a balance between the Executive and the House, and one of the ways in which the House can prevail against the Executive on the Finance Bill is by talking.
I entirely agree with him on this. If our procedures are to be effective, the Opposition have to retain their ultimate right, if they really object, to show their objection by talking—to put it bluntly, by delay. It must be able to show that. Equally, the Government have to retain

their ultimate right. If in the view of the Government the delay is degenerating to obstruction, they must be able to use those powers which ultimately, in the last resort, come to forcing things through. These are the powers of Parliamentary practice. Each has ultimate safeguards.

If anybody says that we are suggesting here that the ultimate safeguards of the Opposition are being thrown away, I reply that they are not. I would not vote for this Motion if I thought that in any way it reduced the ultimate power of the Opposition. What the Motion does is to say that we shall try this year, in a Sessional experiment, a method of time-tabling which has a safeguard attached that, in the event of the voluntary time-table breaking down, the Government will have certain powers of action.

Of course, it is right for the Opposition and everyone to look at that carefully, and to ask if there is any basic shift here in the balance of power between the Executive and the Opposition —or the House and tile Executive I would rather say, because there may be hon. Members behind me who want to use their powers of criticism on the Finance Bill. Are we shifting that basis? That was the basic anxiety of the right hon. Gentleman. I do not believe that this proposal does shift it, and I shall explain why.

Let us, very objectively, try to see the advantages we can get from this, which I do not think will be denied, and which attracted all the members of the Select Committee. If we can get this agreed time-table, with the safeguard, I think that there is no doubt that the quality of our debates and the balance of our debates will be substantially improved. The right hon. Gentleman, when discussing common experience with me on the National Superannuation Bill, made a very significant remark.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That was a slip. That was not the name of the Bill. It was a very different Bill.

Mr. Crossman: Whatever the Bill that the right hon. Gentleman was discussing —it was the "Great Swindle Bill"—he said:
an enormous amount of time is generally taken on the first day or two on the earlier


Clauses, but, as happened with that Measure, that is no indication that, in the long run, good sense will not prevail—.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th April, 1967; Vol. 745, c. 626–71
In that, the right hon. Gentleman gave me a substantial part in my case.
The case which the Committee also made was that in the long run good sense does prevail in the House, but we usually start with a big injection of no sense, with points of order, postponements and delays, and we may waste two or three days before we get down to a sensible tenor of discussion. I believe I am right in saying that the unanimous view of the Select Committee was that one of the ways of getting good sense into discussion of the Bill from the first moment of discussing it, not three days later, was to get agreement before the Bill was discussed, and to get it firmly, so that we would know where we were.
That is the first great advantage. The second would be in the way we look to the outside world. I say in all seriousness that one of the things which does us no good in the outside world is the annual antics, or almost antics, we have on the Finance Bill—the all-night sittings. I will not say that they are to no purpose, but the actual changes achieved, and the improvements, can all be achieved with reasonable safeguards without those antics.
I believe that the second feeling of the Select Committee in recommending this to us was that this was an experiment to see if we could keep the Bill on the Floor of the House—that was a big concession from our side—avoid the antics, and get good sense operating from the start. I believe that the scheme worked out by the Select Committee will achieve that without any substantial surrender.
I must now meet the central point. The right hon. Gentleman says that there will be this new Standing Order, that the Government will have this power, and that this means a surrender. I said to him in the debate, and I repeat, that, if the safeguard were ever used, the main object would have failed. Of course, it would have failed if the safeguard were used, just as the main object has, in a sense, already failed when the Opposition have to start obstructing.
The use of the ultimate weapon in Parliamentary politics is always a failure in the kind of discussions we want, whichever side uses the weapon. Whoever uses the ultimate sanction, we have failed in our attempt to get an orderly discourse between those who have more power and those who have less power. That is what this is about. A fair and orderly discourse depends on each side having ultimate sanctions, but not having recourse to them. That, honestly, is the essence of our Parliamentary system.
Therefore, we need restraint by both sides. I will say frankly to the right hon. Gentleman that there is something much more serious here than the reserve powers. If Government back benchers were to abuse the rights which they would obtain via this sanction, they would more effectively destroy this than any reserve powers. If Government back benchers were to filibuster on the ground that they now have the chance, they would destroy this agreement in a year, and the Opposition—rightly so—would not give it to us again. They would say, "The Government have used this agreement to have fun on their side. They have not used it to enable us to have a better balanced debate and to give us the real chance of having an orderly debate".
This experiment, which is only Sessional, cannot possibly take any other ultimate powers away. But, if it is successful, if it works, and if we can consider it with other alternatives, what it will have succeeded in proving is something which I want to prove, which is that in the House there are Members on both sides who want to make our debates work, who want the House to have a better image outside, and who want the House to conduct its business in an orderly way, making a better impression outside and better debates inside.
That is what the Select Committee was after. This is what I am after. This is what the right hon. Gentleman is after. This morning, we have to see whether he is right in doing something which is a very dangerous and extreme action—challenging the balanced compromise put forward unanimously by a Select Committee which included very distinguished Members from his own side of the House.
I hope that I have said enough to indicate what I want to be the tone of this debate. I do not want it to be a party debate. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is right to think that this is important. He is right to bring it out so that everybody knows what we are doing, and knows what safeguards the Government will have and how it will actually work. Equally, I must emphasise that everybody must know that from the Government's point of view the whole essence of the matter is to have the powers but not to use them. I believe that this was exactly what the Committee wanted to impress on us. I thought that I could impress it on the House this morning.
In conclusion, I would simply say this to those right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who seek today to defeat this recommendation. The recommendation is unanimous. It comes from a Select Committee which has shown itself to be an outstanding Select Committee on Procedure: it has gone into things as thoroughly as any of its predecessors. It says, "All of us would ideally want something better. All of us believe that it is important to get a step forward in improving our procedures. None of us thinks that this is perfect, but we are content to give up our personal views for the sake of a consensus".
I will be blunt. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is here. He has put forward most powerful evidence indicating that, in agreeing to this, the Government are making a substantial concession as to what they want. We want to take the Bill upstairs in Committee. If we cannot get anything by agreement, everyone must then revert to their original intentions. I would hope that the House will understand that we want to make this work if we possibly can and that the Government are making concessions from their point of view. I know that the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) had quite big differences from us about this. He had a view, with which I do not happen to agree, about switching the Bill, and taking it part here and part there. The right hon. and learned Gentleman would have liked that to be considered more.

However, he made a concession so as to get an agreed proposal.
As the proposal has been agreed—agreed by the Select Committee, agreed by the Government, agreed by leading members of the Opposition Front Bench —those who decide to unseat a consensus so widely established as that may be doing a very ill service to the cause of Parliamentary reform by way of agreement.

10.38 a.m.

Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames): The Leader of the House, when he sets out to be persuasive, which is not always, can be very persuasive indeed. This morning we certainly had, if he will allow me to say so, the most excellent example of him in that mood. I shall endeavour to respond in the same tone, though I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I begin with a criticism of him which I feel strongly—that is, that we should be taking this matter, which he himself rightly described as important and said should be fully discussed, this morning, or, indeed, at any morning sitting.
I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman could read the speech he made on 14th December without coming to the conclusion that the only impression he could have left in the minds of hon. Members, on the basis of which impression he obtained his authority to have morning sittings, was that he gave not the slightest indication that a matter of this sort of general concern to the House would be taken at one of these morning sittings.
I do not want to weary the House, though I have the right hon. Gentleman's speech here, by repeating what he said. I do not think that any hon. Member, whatever view he takes on the merits of the matter we now have before us, could have contemplated that, within four or five months of that speech, we should be taking a matter basic to the procedure of the House, and as such of concern to all hon. Members, wherever they sit, at a morning sitting, still less that we should be taking such a matter as this, which the right hon. Gentleman in charge of it describes as important. I must, therefore, register my protest against the matter being taken this morning.
By his own course of proceeding, the right hon. Gentleman clearly began by indicating that this was a matter which the House should discuss in a full House during our normal times of afternoon and evening sitting. That, after all, is why he put it down for debate last Wednesday, together with other Motions. Whatever decisions we come to on this matter, and whenever we come to them, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not repeat this experiment—if I may use his word—of taking major matters of procedure at a morning sitting.

Mr. Frank Hooley: Is not the right hon. Gentleman forgetting that we have discussed this matter in a full House, with everyone able to participate once already? I cannot see any breach of agreement in, as it were, tidying up that debate. The House as a whole has had full opportunity and has discussed the matter.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am not sure that the House did have full opportunity. Formally, we took only the Motion to take note of four Reports from the Select Committee. There were eight Motions down, this and seven others, in a debate in which—I shall be corrected if I am wrong—some hon. Members were not able to catch Mr. Speaker's eye. I recall that there was some complaint about that. The hon. Gentleman, who is normally so perspicacious, has not seen the point. The Leader of the House has conceded that this is a matter to be taken during our normal hours of sitting by putting it down last Wednesday. What I object to is his departure from his own previous decision. I am appealing from the right hon. Gentleman drunk to the right hon. Gentleman sober.
Having said this morning that he was persuasive, I must say that he was the very converse of that on the business question last Thursday. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition put to him that this was a controversial matter which he had himself undertaken should not be taken at a morning sitting. but the right hon. Gentleman resorted to an argument of which, I think, he will now repent, that, as this was not controversial in the party sense—he pointed out

that right hon. and hon. Members like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) were broadly with him on it—it was not controversial within the meaning of his statment of 14th December.
No one who heard that statement could accept that for a moment. There can be, and there are, bitterly controversial matters in the House which do not go on party lines. Capital punishment is a good example. No one will say that it is not highly controversial, but, equally, no one will say that the controversy is on party lines.
Therefore, what is worse than the right hon. Gentleman's decision to put this matter down for a morning sitting is the reason which he gave for so doing. It is not for me to say, but I guess that he is right in saying that, on the merits of the matter, some of my right hon. and hon. Friends do not share the view which I take on the main question, but I doubt that there is anyone on these benches, whatever view may be taken on the merits of it. who would agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we should debate it this morning. I shall take no further time on the point, but I wish to make my protest absolutely plain.
I come now to what the right hon. Gentleman said this morning. He put to me—obviously, this is his strongest point—that the proposal came to us, as he put it, as the unanimous recommendation of a Select Committee. As one who has read this and many other Reports from the Select Committee. I wish humbly to express my admiration of the immense zeal and industry of the members of the Select Committee in dealing with these complex matters. None the less, there are two important qualifications to the right hon. Gentleman's argument.
First, as he himself admitted, this proposal, although it comes to us unanimously from the Select Committee, comes not as the unanimous wish of the Committee, but as a compromise between conflicting views. In many ways, it may well combine, as so many compromises do, the disadvantages of several courses.

Mr. Crossman: I suggest that a compromise is precisely what we mean by a unanimous wish. All of us must sometimes be content to wish to have a lesser


gain so as to get any gain at all. This is what we mean by a unanimous wish for compromise.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I follow the right hon. Gentleman's semantics, but he will appreciate that there is, in practice, a great distinction between the unanimity of enthusiasm and the unanimity of compromise. The right hon. Gentleman said —I need not waste time on it—that many members of the Select Committee would have wished for other solutions. This is not, therefore—I speak subject to correction by my right hon. and learned Friend and others on the Select Committee—a matter which comes to us as the solution which the Select Committee unanimously thought best, but it comes to us as a compromise.
Second, even if it came to us with unanimous enthusiasm, it would still be, though obviously of high persuasive authority, in no sense binding on the House. The right hon. Gentleman himself has not hesitated to take a line different from that put by the Select Committee on others of its recommendations. I take an example which, I think, is favourable to the right hon. Gentleman, the proposal regarding the length of speeches. I disliked the right hon. Gentleman's Motion on the length of speeches and I was delighted the other day to hear that he would not proceed with it. But it was not the recommendation of the Select Committee. In my view, it was much less harmful than what the Select Committee had proposed.
The right hon. Gentleman, having himself taken a view different from that put forward by the Select Committee and having expressed his view on the Order Paper is not in a strong position to say, on another recommendation, that it is an overwhelming argument for accepting this proposal that it is a recommendation of the Select Committee. The right hon. Gentleman has himself accepted the right, which we all have, to take and consider thoughtfully what the Select Committee says and then to make up our own minds on what is right. This is the responsibility of us all, a responsibility which we cannot abdicate to any Select Committee, however distinguished, as this was, in its composition.
I come now to what the right hon. Gentleman said about the "annual antics" on the Finance Bill. Those

annual antics—a nice phrase by which, I think, the right hon. Gentleman means a number of all-night sittings—vary greatly from Finance Bill to Finance Bill. They depend very much on the contents of the Bill, the nature of its provisions, their controversial character and their length, and they depend, also, on the amount of time which successive Leaders of the House make available for discussion. It is certainly my experience—I have had something to do with several Finance Bills—that a series of all-night sittings is not a necessary concomitant of Finance Bill Committee stages. We have sometimes managed without them, when adequate time has been provided by the Government and when, if I may say so without immodesty, Treasury Ministers have shown themselves willing to compromise and accept suggestions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am delighted to hear my hon. Friends' enthusiastic assent.
Obviously, the right hon. Gentleman was conscious that, once one is under a timetable on the Finance Bill, the Opposition are vulnerable to action by Government supporters. If Government back benchers care to speak for a long time on earlier Clauses in the Bill, or on earlier Clauses within each compartment of the Guillotine, they can deny the Opposition's opportunity for full criticism of some Government proposals or, indeed, for any effective criticism of others.
In his dramatic way, the Leader of the House said that, if Government supporters abused this opportunity, this would destroy his proposals. He says that, but there is nothing either in the constitutional position in the House or in the proposed Sessional Order to prevent the Government coming forward again with precisely the same proposals and using their majority to push them through. It is no good his saying that this would destroy it. Of course, it would destroy a good deal of the moral case for it but there is absolutely nothing to prevent the Government, having once achieved this as an experiment, having operated it for this Session, saying that in their view it has been a success, notwithstanding what has happened, and making it a permanent Order in the next Session.

Mr. Crossman: Perhaps I may explain what I meant, for I think that there has been a misunderstanding. When I said that it would destroy what we have achieved, what I hoped that we had achieved was, first, a unanimous view of the Committee and, secondly, what I think we can still achieve, a unanimous view of the House that this was the way to operate for an experiment, and I hope that the House will approve it without a Division.
I only said that that agreement, which was what we had achieved, would be destroyed by abuse on either side, in which case we should revert to our old positions of using what power we have. The whole point of the proposal is that it is not based on power, but on agreement, and it is that which would be destroyed by its abuse by Members supporting the Government.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I follow the right hon. Gentleman's argument. It would be more persuasive if he would back it with a pledge that if, in the Opposition's view, it has been abused—if it is put into force—he would not reintroduce it in another Session. That would be an encouraging safeguard. But if the right hon. Gentleman merely asks us to leave it absolutely in the Government's discretion to say, "It has been a success. We got our Finance Bill quickly, and, therefore, we feel absolutely free to use our majority in a subsequent Session, if we still have that majority", he is really giving us nothing.
If the right hon. Gentleman will give an undertaking that serious objection by the Opposition as to the way in which this has worked will bind him not to reintroduce it next Session, we should be getting somewhere near a consensus. The absence of such an assurance—and he is not looking very reassuring at the moment—very much detracts from the value of what he says. I do not understand why the Government are pressing forward with the proposal now.
I have not yet read the Finance Bill, but in the light of the Budget it would not appear to be likely to be one of the more seriously controversial of those which have been introduced by either side. Why is the right hon. Gentleman so insistent on pushing this through now in respect of the present Finance Bill? [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for

Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) wants to intervene, I hope that he will set a good example, as the Chairman of the Select Committee, and do so in an upright posture. I want to know why the Government are insisting on this this Session in respect of this Finance Bill.

Mr. Crossman: Perhaps I can shorten the debate by replying to the right hon. Gentleman straight away. The reasons are twofold. First, the Select Committee made clear, and I accepted, that it would very much hope that some action would be taken on this, much the most important of their proposals. I have always known that the only gratitude for a Select Committee from the Leader of the House is to carry out the things it recommends.
Secondly, I felt that there was a widespread demand in the House for some advance on this issue. It would have been terrible to have this Report published before the Finance Bill, with no attempt made to implement it this year when, in a sense, it was an extremely easy year to test out the proposals because of the likely nature of the Finance Bill.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman has seized very quickly on this proposal. He has picked it out as the one to put forward, but I think that his explanation of his feeling for it might if genuine be equally applied to the others which he is not at present pressing.
Since he and I have been in the House —and I think that we came in together —no Finance Bill has been guillotined or had a compulsory timetable of any sort. We have proceeded on a voluntary basis, as he himself said, whereas on other major controversial Bills both sides have imposed a guillotine.
The doubt I have about the right hon. Gentleman's very prompt, as he would call it, and very precipitate, as I would call it, action in bringing forward this proposal now, is that he desires to establish a precedent for the time-tabling of all major Bills. After all, no Government since the war, however hard pressed, have ever timetabled a Finance Bill, not even the right hon. Gentlemen opposite, with their immensely complex and controversial 1965 Finance Bill. If the Finance Bill, for which there is no recent precedent for timetabling, is time-tabled, will not the next argument be that every major Bill—perhaps every


Bill taken on the Floor of the House—is to be time-tabled as well? Can the right hon. Gentleman reassure me that that don not lie behind his proposals?

Mr. Crossman: The simple reply is, "No". My motive is that which I gave. The Committee produced a timely Report in time for it to be implemented for this year's Finance Bill. I thought that that was a straightforward reason for doing it.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Those of us who know the right hon. Gentleman know that that is no doubt one of his reasons. In the light of that response, I remain very doubtful whether, having got it once for the Finance Bill, he will not use this as a step towards permanent time-tabling of all Bills. That is a view which has been expressed, if not by the right hon. Gentleman, by some of his hon. Friends and it would be a very serious invasion of the rights of the House.
Coming to its application to the Finance Bill—and this, I think, applies equally to other major Measures—the right hon. Gentleman was dead right when he said that time was the weapon of the Opposition. A timetable compulsorily imposed in default of agreement deprives the Opposition of the day of a great deal of that weapon. Hon. Members opposite will be in opposition again. They know that, and the events of the last fortnight may have brought them a good deal nearer that happy state.
I ask them to pause and think of the position of an Opposition deprived of the great weapon of time on the annual Finance Bill. The weapon of time acts to discourage a Government from putting too much controversial matter into one Bill because their managers on the Floor of the House say that they will never get it through. It acts as a strong incentive to make concessions to an Opposition in order to get time, and it also has the effect, on which the right hon. Gentleman touched, that when controversial Bills are being fought through against a vigorous opposition the Patronage Secretary of the day takes considerable steps to dissuade hon. Members on his own side from taking part.
I remember Sir Alan Herbert, a former Member of the House, saying that the most passionate speech by a Government back butcher in support of a Govern-

ment Bill is as gall and wormwood to his Chief Whip. If he were frank, the Patronage Secretary would say that he agreed with that diagnosis.
Once the Guillotine is on, the Opposition are deprived of their advantage of a virtual monopoly of the Floor. The right hon. Gentleman says that that makes for a better debate, and considering the debating power of many of his Ministers there is a great deal to be said from that point of view. But the Government will get their business ultimately if they persist, and, as the right hon. Gentleman said, rightly so. But if it is controversial business they should have to pay the price of a continuous bombardment from the benches opposite by way of criticism and analysis. This proposal shifts the balance in favour of the Government, and on a measure which has never been guillotined in my recollection.
I will come to the two Amendments in my name. The right hon. Gentleman said that he hoped for a high degree of consensus in this matter. He stressed this, and I hope that that means that if he is to insist on this Motion, he will reflect on the two Amendments which, in my view, will very much diminish the evil of this proposal. The first is to substitute Mr. Speaker for a Minister of the Crown as being the person who has to take a decision about whether an agreement is working effectively.
There is something quite wrong and removed from the ordinary principles of fairness for one party to an agreement to be the unchallenged judge as to whether that agreement is being implemented. All of us have made agreements and have felt quite sincerely that the other party has not been abiding by them, but it does not follow that an impartial third party or referee would agree with us. We are dealing with agreements which, under the terms of the Motion, are required to be notified to Mr. Speaker. They are agreements of which he is therefore aware.
I am sure that the whole House is with me when I say that we have the utmost regard and respect for the absolute impartiality and fairness of Mr. Speaker. Many of us would feel that this proposal would be more acceptable if it were Mr. Speaker who decided whether an agreement was being carried through effectively, rather than a Minister of the


Crown. By the nature of things the Minister will be biased and will want to get business through. In addition, he is a party to the agreement.
If the right hon. Gentleman really wants a consensus and agreement, and does not want, as he rather indicated, simply to force this through with the aid of his majority, there is here a real means of diminishing the unhappiness and suspicion which this proposal, as he frankly avowed, arouses in the minds of many of us.
The second Amendment is to substitute six hours for two as a period of debate if a Motion of this kind is put forward. Here, 1 call in aid what the Leader of the House said, that if the reserve powers required to be exercised, this would be, to some extent an indication that the experiment had failed. This was putting it very fairly. He is at least suggesting that these powers should not be invoked except on grounds of extreme necessity. If this is so he ought to allow full debate on the timetable Motion. One cannot get that in two hours.
There will be a speech from the Government Front Bench and one of my right hon. Friends below me, and there will not be very much time for the rest of us. More important, we may desire to exercise our rights to table Amendments to the timetable Motion, as is often done. Obviously, it will be quite impossible to do that, and to argue that within a certain period, more time should be given to certain Clauses within a limited debate of two hours.
I put forward six hours as being the nearest rough equivalent to an ordinary Parliamentary day. On those days when we have morning sittings, and have the misfortune to have to terminate our main business at 9.30 p.m., this is nominally the length of the day. On other days, if there are statements, and so on, it is perhaps about the effective day's debate. If the right hon. Gentleman is sincere in his statement that he does not want to invoke this except on grounds of extreme necessity, that this is simply a reserve power, to be used only when all else has failed, he ought to be prepared to give a day to argument.
This is particularly so when one remembers that this is not a question of

guillotining an ordinary Bill, which under our present rules can always be guillotined, but the Finance Bill, which has not, within living memory, been guillotined. If the right hon. Gentleman is to guillotine the Finance Bill, in fairness to himself, because he may have a very powerful case, and in fairness to the House, we ought to have a full day's debate.
If the right hon. Gentleman is right, and if this is unlikely to arise, he will be giving away nothing by accepting this. If he is wrong, and the matter requires to be debated, six hours is not unreasonable. To put it art its lowest, surely it will give us some reassurance that the power will not be lightly invoked, because any manager of Parliamentary business will not throw away a full Parliamentary day lightly. He may be prepared to throw away two hours. Again, this is a test of his sincerity and the conciliatory manner in which he put forward the proposal. If we are to guillotine the Finance Bill let us have a full day for debate.
I am conscious that, despite the fact that this is a morning sitting, many of my hon. Friends wish to address themselves to this important matter. The right hon. Gentleman knows the views of many of us about morning sittings. I should be guilty of the same sort of Freudian slip as the right hon. Gentleman was when he accepted that a National Superannuation Bill would be synonymous with a national swindle, in his observations at the beginning of his speech.
The point that I want to leave with the House is that as it stands, this proposal offers a serious threat to the balance of authority of this House as against the Government. It is without recent precedent to do this to the Finance Bill; it would greatly strengthen the Government in their authority over the House and the Opposition, whoever they may be. The right hon. Gentleman may say that this is only an experiment, but those of us with experience of this House know perfectly well what is likely to happen.
The Finance Bill is not likely to be a very prolonged Bill this year, and the right hon. Gentleman may well say that this has been a success, and it would then go forward, almost accepted, into the permanent Orders next Session. The right


hon. Gentleman requires far greater evidence of need to make this change before seeking to make it, even as an experiment. He knows that his leadership of the House, and some of the things which he has done, and which we believe he plans to do, arouse serious doubts and suspicions in the minds of many of my hon. Friends. If he insists on pressing this forward without compromise on the two points that I have put forward, then we will feel that there are great dangers to the authority of this House. If the right hon. Gentleman wants this to go forward, then not only the Select Committee, but he too, should show a willingness to co-operate.

11.8 a.m.

Mr. A. Woodburn: I regret that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) did not take advantage of his opportunities to go before the Select Committee and make some of his observations, so that they could have been considered by the whole Committee, and some recommendation made on these as well as the other points raised. It is obvious from his speech that he is against the proposals altogether.
There are various ways to stop proposals. Some people say that they are in favour of going into the Common Market, but put up so many proposals that it would be quite impossible. This smells to me to be the same kind of position for the proposals today. The right hon. Gentleman is raising conditions which make the proposals impossible. Take his recommendation that Mr. Speaker should be involved. My experience of disputes arising over the imposition of the Guillotine is that they are very bitter inter-party disputes. It would be wrong to ask Mr. Speaker to take sides when the parties are bitterly opposed. It is almost certain that the party which feels frustrated would blame Mr. Speaker for taking sides.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the proposal would arise only when agreement had been entered into by the two sides and when it was alleged by one side to be working ineffectively? Mr. Speaker would then he asked to adjudicate not on whether it was a good or bad agreement but on whether it had been worked.

Mr. Woodburn: When the matter had reached that point it would have become a bitter inter-party dispute and it would be wrong to ask Mr. Speaker to get involved in a party controversy of that kind.
The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames went on to argue why it should be six rather than two hours. To accept his proposal would mean retaining the existing system and we would continue to waste a whole day discussing the Guillotine Motion. The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do what happens when Motions of this kind are discussed. The speech made from the Government Front Bench introducing a Guillotine Motion and the speech made from the Opposition Front Bench opposing it are reproduced practically verbatim with successive Guillotine Motions. On each occasion a Parliamentary day is wasted. Does the right hon. Gentleman want this system to continue?
What is the sense of the Select Committee recommending methods of saving a few Parliamentary days, in which reasonable business may be conducted, if the right hon. Gentleman wants to frustrate that effort by using up Parliamentary time in having the same nonsensical disputes which arise whenever the Guillotine is introduced? After all, it is only at the end of the day, when the Vote is taken, that the matter is finally decided.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that on a complex and important Measure like the Finance Bill it is necessarily a waste of time to argue proposed amendments, even within the structure of a Guillotine Motion, so that those Clauses to which the Opposition attach importance are properly discussed?

Mr. Woodburn: The right hon. Gentleman has obviously misunderstood the position, because the Select Committee did not recommend having a Guillotine Motion in the strict sense of the sort of Motion the right hon. Gentleman has in mind, where business comes to an end at a certan time and all outstanding Amendments fall or are approved, as the case may be, and the remaining parts of the Measure completed. That is not the proposal and I hope that the arrangement arrived at through the usual channels will not be based on that system.
The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames will recall what happened on, for example, the Measure to denationalise road transport. There was a voluntary timetable and the Bill was discussed thoroughly and wisely. There was not a Guillotine in the strict sense of the word. There was a certain flexibility on that occasion, it having been decided that the debates would terminate by a certain date. That is the sort of arrangement the Select Committee had in mind and it is to be hoped that this type of voluntary agreement will accomplish that satisfactory procedure.
The right hon. Gentleman spent a good deal of his speech dealing with his general philosophy of the House and referring to morning sittings. Is not the subject we are now discussing an excellent vehicle for morning sittings? There has been a considerable dispute going on in the House—the right hon. Gentleman may not be aware of it—and some hon. Members have criticised morning sittings because, they have said, the Government have brought forward trivialities which are not really worth discussing. The right hon. Gentleman is now criticising the Government for having introduced something worth while discussing in the morning. He cannot have it both ways. I am glad that he has had this opportunity to air his views, and he must be grateful that morning sittings have allowed him that opportunity.
I thought, as I heard the right hon. Gentleman giving his general philosophy of Parliament, that he had become somewhat confused. This Parliament could not work under a dictatorship. The Select Committee could have put forward a majority view which might not have been accepted by the Government. For example, we could have put forward a majority view that the whole Bill be taken upstairs or we could have accepted the suggestion of the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) to send the business part of the Bill upstairs. Instead, the Select Committee decided that it was best, in the long run, to allow the House to decide what was best for the House. We heard evidence, considered the matter carefully and put forward three main possibilities. One possibility might have been that we

do nothing at all, but that was not one of the three main possibilities which we put before the House. I believe that the Government have wisely adopted the possibility which we felt generally would work best. It is that we should try out the voluntary agreement idea before considering Guillotines.

Mr. Ronald Bell: What the right hon. Gentleman is saying is right to a certain degree, but would he say what opportunity the House has had to consider the alternatives?

Mr. Woodburn: My remarks are not right to some degree but are completely right. The House has had more time to consider this matter than many others. Only the other week we spent a whole day discussing the subject. Is not the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the House does not consider matters of this kind merely in the Chamber but that hon. Members consider them after reading the various Reports that are published? In my view, the Government have taken a wise decision.
The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames is rightly apprehensive lest the Government impose their will on the House. The Select Committee has been conscious of this but is aware, as are all hon. Members, that there is a multitude of ways of frustrating Government business if the Government are not, in the opinion of the Opposition, acting reasonably towards the House. This applies not just to the Finance Bill but to all Measures. The Opposition are able to delay, even stop, almost every Bill and every little Order that comes before Parliament. The Opposition can use un every possible moment of Parliamentary time—and this can be done to such an extent that Government business becomes frustrated.
The right hon. Gentleman will be aware, from his past experience, of how these matters work. When the Irish used these methods the Government were going to break down, although it simply meant that the liberties of the House to discuss matters reasonably were frittered away by the Guillotine, Kangaroo and other systems being introduced, along with the selection of Amendments by Mr. Speaker or the chairmen of Committees.
The Government have taken the view that the best idea is to proceed with a


system of agreement between the Opposition and the Government to use Parliamentary time sensibly. The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames is aware of what has happened in the past when Finance Bills have been debated, though perhaps one can say that he was sitting in the stalls, in front of the stage, while others were unable to enjoy the performance because they had to stay up all night, probably because an hon. Member wanted to move a frittery little Amendment. Those who may stay up through long nights cannot enjoy the performance as much as those who are sitting in the front stalls. Consider those who work in the restaurants in this building and the other members of the staff who must be here. They cannot enjoy it. Nor can the public, because they think it absolutely stupid that grown men should be conducting their business in this way. Nobody hears about our deliberations because the Press cannot report them and a great deal is lost in the mists of HANSARD. The right hon. Gentleman is doing a disservice in trying to perpetuate this type of performance.
The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames went on to say that we had always managed to arrive at an agreement. The Select Committee examined that proposition. It is true that filibustering manages to occupy an odd day or two of Parliamentary time here and there. When we measured it, we found that it was marginal because the timetable is not decided by us but by the date on which the Finance Bill must reach the House of Lords. The Opposition does not have an unlimited amount of time in which to filibuster. We discovered that, in the long run, agreement has finally been reached. There are usually three days wasted in filibustering on the Finance Bill in an effort to get an extra day or two, but in the end the Bill proceeds normally on its way.
What the Select Committee and the Government suggest is that we should start off at once with sensible discussion of the Bill, and not wait until three days have been wasted on this performance of getting an extra day by losing three days. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is doing us a service with his proposal.
This is not a dishonourable compromise. The Select Committee did not

compromise, but put forward alternatives. All members of the Select Committee felt that voluntary agreement, if it could be adopted, was best—not to have the Guillotine—and I shall be very disappointed if that is not the unanimous view of this House also. Otherwise, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, we are thrown back to considering whether Governments or parties use their power to impose their particular ideas.
The House does not work like that. We on the Select Committee were satisfied that if we recommended some drastic Motions and expected the Government to impose them on the House, we would be wrong, and that the Government would not do so. If they did, everything would break down. The Government have to consider the Opposition. That is the great virtue of our democratic system—it is not a dictatorship. Legislation is passed in this House taking account of the views of minorities on both sides. It is not a question of a dictator laying down the law.
Every hon. Member can influence Bills, and when that influence proves sufficiently firm and broad the Government accept the will of the House and do not put the particular matter to the vote. When the House wins, the Government give in. In that way, democracy triumphs, because this House is a synthesis of all its Members and of the Government. That is very important. Our foreign friends do not always quite realise the importance of the Government listening to and taking into account minority views.
When a Government and an Opposition have been elected, we have a complete Parliament. Some people sometimes think that all that is necessary is enough Lobby fodder endorsing the Government view, and do not realise that the individual Member has such power in this House as he has. I myself, a very modest Member of the House, could give quite a long list of things that have been achieved by individual Members pressing their views on the Government —whichever party it might be—and the Government very often being reasonable and seeing the virtue of doing what was suggested.
The Select Committee considered this matter very carefully. Here, I pay my


tribute to all my colleagues on the Select Committee. They represent both sides. I can assure the House that hon. and right hon. Members opposite are not by any means "softies" when it comes to sticking up for their side. Nothing gets past them that would be injurious to the working of their own party. They played a very big part in getting a reasonable decision.
I also pay tribute to the Chairman of the Select Committee, who has been so diplomatic and hard-working in trying to get a solution. I also congratulate the Leader of the House who, in a remarkable way, in moving the Motion seemed to have discovered the inner thoughts of the members of the Select Committee. I do not know how he did it, though he may have discovered it from the cross-examination we gave him.
The House will do itself credit if it goes forward as suggested, and does its business reasonably. The House will be an important element of democracy in the future. Continental people are looking to it and to its experience to help them make a democratic Europe. If we can show them a good example of using our time properly, and if we can see that the world gets the benefit of our wisdom—because the reports of our debates are carried much further than we sometimes think—we shall have done well. We must show that we are businesslike, and have been able to make democracy work. Unless we can make it work here, the chances of its working satisfactorily elsewhere are not very great.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames will reconsider his position—he has made his protest today—and allow the Government's acceptance of what the Select Committee thought to be the most reasonable of three or four suggestions before it, to be carried unanimously.

11.25 a.m.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: I shall not detain the House for long, but I should like to make a few points after the extremely reasonable speeches we have so far had. To me, the proposal made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), that the judge of

whether there has been an infringement of an agreement should not be the Government but an independent person, seems eminently reasonable. I hope that the Leader of the House will indicate his acceptance of it.
With all respect to the Chairman of the Select Committee, I want to be slightly more unreasonable than others have so far been. This has been regarded very much as a House of Commons matter, but the control of taxation is much more a national matter. The right hon. Gentleman said that the midnight antics are causing the House to fall into disrepute, but I am afraid that the reasons for that disrepute and the failure of Parliament—and this applies to both main parties, and to the House as a whole. leaving out the vagaries and follies of individual Members on either side—is the total failure of the House to control Government expenditure.
The machinery for doing so is not there, and the people are not there. It was possible when we had a Budget of, perhaps, £60 million a year in the days of Mr. Gladstone, but Government expenditure has now become so complex and controversial, and almost incomprehensible that I believe that those who seek to reform the House should make their main attack on control of that expenditure.
That being so, the proposal that the control of Government taxation should be limited in time is very questionable. I think that we are now proposing to limit the amount of time available to an unreasonable degree. This is trying to make an honest woman of the Guillotine, under threat of the much more serious sanction, which we know has been proposed elsewhere, and has been referred to by the Leader of the House this morning, that if we do not now agree to compromise, the whole of next year's Finance Bill discussions will be taken in a Committee.
I believe that that would be wrong. This is the one way in which ordinary Members have some control over the taxation imposed by the Government. It may be foolish to sit up all night. It may be bad luck on the servants of the House. It may be bad luck on hon. Members, but this is a vital function of the House of Commons, and once it derogates its powers in this matter it will


destroy itself far more effectively than in any other way.
This is where the Select Committee is at fault. It has failed to see the main issue because it is obsessed, as it must be, consisting as it does of party politicians and good and honest Members, with the interests of the House. What matters is the interest of the general public. This is what matters, and this is what the House should consider.
Let us consider the various compromises which could be worked out. I should like, to make two main points on this. The first was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames when he discussed the amount of time which would be available to those opposing Government taxation. This is the key point from the public's point of view, be it a Conservative or a Labour Government who are in office. Every speech in favour of taxation is a speech against the interests of the public. Every speech against taxation is a speech in favour of the interests of the public. Therefore, the waste of time which could take place under this proposal is absolutely fabulous.
Secondly, there is the important matter of the interests of minorities in the House. These minority interests are not represented by right hon. Gentlemen from the two Front Benches getting together. They are represented by the individual Member. He may represent some obscure industry, or be concerned with some obscure problem which is troubling one of his constituents, and he must be able to express his views. The opportunity to do so will be lost under this proposal.
I think that the House will behave in an extremely foolish manner if it goes forward with this proposal unconditioned by the excellent Amendment proposed by my right hon. Friend, and that it will be even greater folly if it tries to take the discussion of taxation away from the public gaze.
There is one final point which I should like to make, and this applies especially to the Chief Secretary, who is a hardworking, excellent Chief Secretary within his own lights, which I agree are dim. He has applied himself with great vigour to the discharge of his duties and his high office, but the fact remains that

what the public want to see are Finance Bills correctly and intelligently written, and the more time that this House spends on something where it can achieve results, the better.

11.33 a.m.

Mr. F. Blackburn: The right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) referred to the failure of the House to control Government expenditure. That reminds me of something I said during the debate last week. I said that I could understand better the enthusiasm of those people who thought that 630 people were the ideal body to discuss the details of Finance Bills and the details of taxation if they showed the same enthusiasm for discussing the Estimates. That does not happen here. They are discussed by the Estimates Committee, but there is not the same enthusiasm to discuss the Estimates on the Floor of the House as there is to discuss the Finance Bill.
As I listened to the speech of the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), it seemed to me that nobody had ever told him that those who sat on the Opposition benches were no longer the Government. I shall not go into detail about the right hon. Gentleman's ardent plea that the decision should be left to the Opposition if they do not like what happens under this Motion. Nor shall I discuss in detail what the right hon. Gentleman said about the fact that so long as the Opposition were talking that would be getting the best of all possible worlds.
I am surprised that I have an opportunity this morning to make a speech at all. I should have thought that this was a continuation of last week's debate. It seems to me that when a Second Reading debate takes place in the morning, and is not completed and is put down for another morning, it is not intended to be a new debate, but a continuation of the previous one. Anyway, I am pleased to be able to take advantage of the Ruling which has been given because it gives me the opportunity to make a little clearer what I was trying to say at the end of the debate last week.
I do not think that the reporting of my speech last week reached the high standard which we always associate with HANSARD, but I am willing to agree that


probably the fault was mine, and not that of the reporters, who do such an excellent job. I cannot have expressed myself clearly enough.
The point I was trying to make was in support of the Motion, but saying that in my opinion it did not go far enough. What I am going to say now will be anathema to the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames. I believe that it would be to the advantage of debates in the House if we had a timetable for all major Bills—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".]—and perhaps I might explain why.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That has let the cat out of the bag.

Mr. Blackburn: That was the point I was trying to make, and I shall not change my mind. As a matter of fact, I put this point to the Select Committee on Procedure in 1958–59.

Mr. Donald Chapman: And moved an Amendment.

Mr. Blackburn: As my hon. Friend says, I moved an Amendment to that effect, so it is not something which has just cropped up.
Last week, I did not say that I thought I had more experience of Standing Committees than any other Member of the House. I said that I thought that I still had more experience of chairing Standing Committees than any other Member of the House, and it is because of my experience as a Chairman of Committees that I put forward this view.
Unless there is a timetable, the first few Clauses of a Bill are discussed exhaustively, and the later Clauses are passed over far too quickly. I happened to be the Chairman of the Bill which has been referred to this morning as "the great swindle". I was also the Chairman of a Local Government Bill, which we discussed for 31 sittings. It was a major Bill, and 11 of the 31 sittings were taken up with discussing the first Clause. When the number of sittings was reaching the late twenties, some Members who thought that I had been rather tough as Chairman when we were discussing the earlier Clauses said to me, "Can you not stop so-and-so from talking?" They rather over-

estimated the power of the Chairman, but the point was that they were weary of the discussion, and the later Clauses were passed over too quickly. This is what usually happens, and this is why I think it important to have a timetable for all major Bills. The important matter is not how many speeches Opposition Members can make, or for how long they can go on making them, but how adequately we discuss the details of the legislation which is before us.
I sincerely hope that hon. Members will allow this experiment to go through without a Division. I understand that it is merely an experiment for this Session, and that further discussions can take place later in the light of what happens. What I find strange about the House—and I referred to this last week—is the difficulty one experiences in getting a change in procedure carried out by the House. Everybody to whom one talks is, in broad terms, agreed that we need to streamline our procedure, that we need to alter it in this way or that, but when we come to a specific suggestion they are all against it. That has been my experience ever since I came to this House.
I hope that this proposal will be allowed to go through, so that we can see how the experiment works. It is nonsense for us to sit up right through the night discussing the details of a Finance Bill. As my right hon. Friend said, some prima donnas of our Finance Bill debates enjoy that, but the rest of us do not necessarily do so. I expect that constituents tell other hon. Members, as they tell me, that they cannot understand the nonsense of Members of Parliament thinking that they can discuss adequately the details of a Finance Bill in the early hours of the morning.

Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: Never.

Mr. Blackburn: I do not know whether the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) is a strange Member, or whether he has a strange constituency.
I hope that the House will allow this experiment to go forward. Let us not just say that we are in favour of changing our procedure but are not prepared to try any experiments.
The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames knows that the suggestions contained in his Amendment are not very sensible.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: rose—

Mr. Blackburn: I shall not give way, because the right hon. Gentleman spent a long time making his speech and entirely forgot that on the previous procedural debate everybody tried to make short speeches.
It is not right to place upon Mr. Speaker yet another duty. That was my objection to the suggestion about the length of speeches. We should not try to foist off on to Mr. Speaker the onus of making a decision in such a matter. That is what I regard as wrong about the right hon. Gentleman's first suggestion.
The right hon. Gentleman's second suggestion, also, is nonsense. If it is suggested that we should discuss for six hours whether or not there should be any change, I say that we ought to have a guillotine Motion to begin with.
I hope that hon. Members will allow the experiment to go forward, so that, in the light of that experiment, we can consider what should be done in future.

11.43 a.m.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I intervene now in order to make it clear that I am making an opening speech and not a closing one. I did not follow immediately after the Leader of the House because I thought it better to let one or two of my hon. Friends speak first. Now I feel that I ought to rise in case my loyalty to the Motion should be strained by what might be said by other hon. Members supporting it. There will be a free vote on this side of the House. My views were expressed in the debate on Wednesday, 19th April, and I again intend to support the Motion.
I know that my hon. and right hon. Friends—and some hon. Members opposite—are very suspicious about any agreements arrived at between the Front Benches. Therefore, in order to preserve my position, I must point out that my support of the Motion does not include approval of taking this business at a morning sitting. In the debate on 14th December the Leader of the House made it clear that morning sittings would be used for non-controversial legislation and the like, and the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) who wound up the debate, used the phrase "minor and non-contentious business". This

question is certainly not a minor one, and it is certainly highly contentious. By taking this debate at a morning sitting the right hon. Gentleman has reinforced some of my hon. Friends' arguments about experiments being the thin end of the wedge. Having said what I have said about morning sittings, however, I want to come to my approach to the Motion.
In my view it is not wrong to try to arrange our affairs so that discussion is reasonably balanced and reasonable hours are worked. It is a benefit to both Government and Opposition if the discussion is not bunched on one or two Clauses—if a great deal of time is not taken up on them and the rest of the Clauses are not properly discussed. This approach does not involve a sacrifice of the rights of the Opposition. This is a satisfactory approach, provided we preserve in some form the right of the Opposition to use the weapon of time and the right of Government to use the ultimate sanction of an enforced time table.
I also believe that the difficulties over most Finance Bills have been greatly exaggerated. The dreadful Bill of 1965 has been responsible for a great deal of this trouble. That was a very bad and contentious Bill. It took about 16 days in Committee, and rightly so.

Sir Douglas Glover: And that was not enough.

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend says that that was not enough. I will not repeat what I said in the last debate, but usually, with a little common sense on the part of the Chancellor of the day and the Opposition spokesman of the day the thing works out fairly well through the usual channels. There is a little give and take. Occasionally there will be a late sitting, but generally speaking the thing works reasonably. We do not usually have very late sittings at the beginning of a Finance Bill.
That is how I should have preferred to leave the matter, relying upon the good sense of the House and the skill and tact of the Front Bench spokesmen and the usual channels. I must admit, however, that a majority of the Committee on Procedure wanted the whole Bill sent upstairs. Some people felt that if they consented to its remaining


on the Floor of the House, or abstained from recommending that it should go upstairs, something more than a voluntary agreement, by way of a long-stop, was needed. In fact, the Government already have a long-stop in the shape of the Guillotine, and this proposal is a form of guillotine.
My right hon. Friend the, Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) said that this proposal would make the Guillotine an honest woman. I am not sure that that would be so, because under the new procedure all the old cries about "gag" would be appropriate. The Government can be abused in exactly the same way under this procedural Motion as they would be under a Guillotine Motion.
I do not wish to discuss the question of the length of debate until I have heard the Government reply. The difference between this procedure and the Guillotine is that the number of days will be fixed by the Business Committee, consisting of the Chairmen's Panel and five other Members. We know that with that sort of Committee the Government do not automatically get their way. When the Government fix the length of time for debate under a Guillotine Motion the Government take the decision and the Business Committee merely arranges the time table within the number of days decided by the Government, but under this proposal the Business Committee will fix the number of days. That is a concession by the Government.
In my opinion this is a reasonable solution. I hope that, as a result, we shall be able to keep the Finance Bill on the Floor of the House and have it reasonably debated. Some of my hon. Friends have approached the question entirely from the position of the agreement's breaking down. I am sure that the usual channels will be anxious to make this agreement work and will not want to bring this sanction into force. There will be a great deal of endeavour on the Government side and through the usual channels to see that the procedure works and that the ultimate sanction does not have to be entertained. In my view this is the correct course to adopt, and I hope that my hon. and right hon. Friends will support the Motion.

11.50 a.m.

Mr. Frank Hooley (Sheffield, Healey): I am exceedingly nervous in wandering between the fusillades of two such experienced Parliamentarians as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and the right hon. Gentleman for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). If some of the things I say seem inept or naïve, I hope that they will forgive my inexperience.
My hon. Friend said that one of his reasons for pressing forward with this reform was the widespread demand for a change in our procedure. I think that he was absolutely right in that. This demand has come not only from within this House—although I have gained the impression that the pressure within the House has been much greater in recent years than in the past—but from outside the House. It reflects the serious concern about the authority of Parliament and the way in which the House conducts its business.
On this point, I follow completely the remarks of the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser), who said that this was a national matter concerning matters of national importance and not merely a cosy chat between ourselves as to how we should arrange our own affairs to suit ourselves. It is an important matter concerning the efficient transaction of the country's business. I believe it right that the House should discuss this reform, and discuss it urgently.
I pass to the point of consensus. There is undoubtedly much to be said for reforming our procedures by consensus where a reasonable consensus can be obtained, but I rather wonder just how far one has to go to achieve a consensus of absolutely all shades of opinion in the House. It would be quite intolerable if procedure had to be held up because an absolute and complete consensus could not be obtained. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House was quite right in saying that the division of opinion is not between the two sides, but entirely on one side, or largely on one side, of the House. The Select Committee over which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) presided with such success has


done an exceedingly good job and probably got as far as it was reasonably possible to expect it to get in achieving consensus of opinion. To go beyond that would be to hinder an important useful reform.
A great deal of play has been made with the weapon of delay, or time, as a weapon for the Opposition and as a weapon for dissident back benchers on the Government side, whatever Government happen to be in power. The House is very seriously under-rating another power to which I referred in my somewhat hurried speech last week—the power of investigation. I seriously suggest that we should approach the business of legislation and government in a slightly more scientific spirit than the spirit which has persisted and which perhaps has been traditional. Obstruction is all right; it is a Parliamentary weapon, a weapon of debate but it is not a very constructive weapon. It has been suggested by people who know a great deal more about these matters than I know, that in itself it is not a very effective weapon, and even those who use it become tired of it.
Much better than the weapon of obstruction is the weapon of informed investigation and inquiry, a careful analysis of what the Government are proposing, a detailed examination of what the defects of those proposals are, and what alternative arrangements can be made. For this reason I am still quite unrepentent in advocating the sending of this business to a Committee which can deal with the matter in a sensible, scientific fashion, which can thoroughly analyse the proposals, I suggest to the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone that it can give a much more effective examination of the control of expenditure than can possibly he achieved by a body nominally of 600 people debating into the early hours of the morning.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: So far as concerns Government expenditure, there is a great deal to be said for Specialist Committees, but we are talking now of the question of controlling Government taxation, which is a different matter.

Mr. Hooley: The right hon. Gentleman is right in saying that expenditure and taxation are different problems, but the same principle applies. If we want a sensible analysis and discussion of taxa-

tion we cannot have it by endless repetitive speeches from 12 midnight until 10 o'clock in the morning, which often is what debates on the Finance Bill boil down to. It would be much more sensible to have a Committee interested and reasonably expert in these matters which could have an informed discussion on the matters at issue.
Nevertheless, in the consensus which has so far emerged we have the proposition before us now. It has another serious disadvantage, quite apart from the fact that it does not give an opportunity for serious analysis. That disadvantage is that it does not free the Floor of the House for general debates on matters of urgent importance. This is a very serious defect of the compromise. I should have thought that the Opposition would have picked on this defect, because, clearly, it limits the chance of the Opposition to raise matters of great public urgency if the Floor of the House is taken up with very detailed Committee procedures.
I hope that in the interest of getting somewhere forward the House will adopt the proposals. This is contrary to my preference, but I nevertheless support them. I have only one question to ask and perhaps I am being naïve. I am not altogether clear about the meaning of the word "days" in the Motion. Are we to take it that a day means from 2.30 until—

Mr. Blackburn: Ten.

Mr. Hooley: —such time as hon. Members stop speaking? I understand that this is automatically exempted business. Is the day to be something which will be agreed through the usual channels and that it shall be agreed when we shall stop, or has it some other meaning? I do not know of any definition of a Parliamentary day in our Standing Orders.

Sir D. Glover: I think that the correct Parliamentary expression is
until the rising of the House
whatever time that may be.

Mr. Hooley: I am grateful to the hon. Member. What worries me is that it might coincide with the rising of the sun.

Mr. Chapman: Has my hon. Friend continued to read line 11 of the Motion? The definition of "days" is improved for his purpose by line 11.

Mr. Hooley: I have re-read line 11 hastily, but it does not enlighten me. I must plead ignorance and I should like to have more information about this.

Mr. Crossman: I think that the meaning we had and the meaning of the Select Committee was that the period of rising, while not absolute, would be something discussed through the usual channels. I think that it was also made clear, in deference to the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), that no precise time would be fixed in anything put to the House. There could be some discretion. Broadly, there would be some discretion about roughly when the House would rise each day.

Mr. Hooley: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend, but I am still uneasy about the basis of compromise. However, if that is the situation I must accept it. I do not wish to delay the House any longer. I have made clear all along that I do not regard a Committee of the whole House as a sensible proceeding for this or for any other Bill. It is antiquated and time-wasting and has great practical disadvantages. I am all in favour of the Finance Bill going upstairs to Committee. I hope that in the interest of as wide a consensus as we can get on this issue the House will adopt this proposal as an experimental measure.

12 noon.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: I can put the attitude and intention of the Liberal Party quite shortly. We hope that the House will accept the Leader of the House's Motion—

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Has not the Liberal Party a free vote on this?

Mr. Wainwright: I am surprised that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should suppose that freedom excludes unanimity. I am equally surprised that he should require any assertion from me that all of our votes from this bench are, in the best sense of the word, free.
I was saying that we hope that the House will accept the Motion and will agree to make this experiment, which is based upon agreement. We do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House when he says that this is a lucky year in which to put the experiment to the test. We do not consider

that the Finance Bill, which was published yesterday, will provide much of a test of the proposed new procedure, and we should much prefer the new procedure to be tested on a tax reforming Finance Bill of a major kind which would test it really thoroughly.
Nevertheless, this happens to be the moment at which this agreed compromise is offered to us, and we consider that it should be accepted and tried because we regard the proposals in the Motion as the alternative to something which Liberals would resolutely deplore, that is, the removal of the Committee stage—[HON. MEMBERS: "All Liberals?"] All Liberals with whom I am acquainted would deplore the removal of the Committee stage of the Finance Bill from the Floor of the House.
It may be said—I can almost hear it being said by some of the right hon. and hon. Members who have been pleasantly interrupting me—that Liberals are in favour of giving way to ugly Government threats and that we are simply backing down in face of an even worse proposal which has been threatened. This is not wholly true. Clearly, there has for some time been a strong force of opinion outside Government circles and the administrative nexus in favour of taking the Finance Bill upstairs in Committee, and we have to reckon with that force of opinion on the back benches as well. Furthermore, to say that we are resolutely opposed to the removal of the Finance Bill debates from the Floor of the House is not to say that the procedure should remain exactly as it has been.
We recognise that there is now a great deal of legislation which should have very careful consideration in the House, legislation which has more effect upon the pockets of the people than many Clauses in a normal Finance Bill. We are anxious that there should be more time and more room for discussion of other legislation involving levies and other charges upon the people, or upon many of them.
Nevertheless, even allowing that many Clauses of the average Finance Bill affect only—

Mr. Ronald Bell: Has the hon. Gentleman observed that the opening lines of the Motion make clear that it refers to any


Bill imposing a charge upon the people? It is not a Motion just about the Finance Bill.

Mr. Wainwright: I shall be assisted if that point can be cleared up in the Government's reply. I had assumed that the Motion referred simply to taxing statutes and would not apply, for instance, to a Measure like the Land Commission Bill. I shall be glad to hear the official interpretation of the proposal. But, be that as it may, it seems to us that a Finance Bill, even though many of its Clauses in a normal year are recondite and affect only a small number of people from time to time, must be looked at as a whole, and, as a whole, the Finance Bill is the great Measure imposing a charge upon the people. We should be bitterly disappointed to see any of it removed from the Floor of the House. Rather than run the risk of that happening, we prefer to accept the proposal before us this morning.

12.4 p.m.

Mr. Michael English: It seems to me that we are discussing two separate matters, first, the procedure on the Finance Bill, and second, the question of timetabling Bills, whether they be Finance Bills or other Bills.
To begin with, I take up a point made by one hon. Gentleman opposite which expressed his philosophy, with which I totally disagree, of the object of this House in dealing with a Finance Bill. He said that any blow, any opposition—he meant reasonable opposition, of course—to a tax proposal was a blow in favour of the people. I am not quoting his exact words, but that was the philosophy behind his statement. It is, indeed, the old philosophy of this House, and I accept that the hon. Gentleman was expressing what has been the tradition of the House for centuries. It is a tradition with which I utterly disagree.
It is true—there was a Gallup Poll recently to prove it—that what most people in the United Kingdom would like would be increased services and reduced taxation, but they realise, in practice, that their desire for the one must be balanced against their desire for the other, and they give us the job of trying to strike the balance.
It does not seem to me that one should make the proposals for raising money to pay for services any more or any less difficult to get through the House than proposals to increase the services themselves and the expenditure upon them. In my view, the two things ought to be balanced, and to say, as has been the philosophy of the House, that one should be able to create an enormous service by one sort of procedure and yet pay for that service only by a much greater procedure, with 22 stages throughout the year, in one way or another—hon. Members will recall that from an earlier Report—is, in my view, unbalanced and ridiculous.
It dates back to a previous age when the whole idea and philosophy of Parliament was that, if possible, Governments ought not to exist and that they ought to be kept to the minimum if they had to exist for some purpose. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is not the philosophy of the majority of people in the United Kingdom today, and, if hon. Members opposite think that it is, that explains their present numbers in the House.
On a minor issue, the hon. Gentleman to whom I have referred missed another point because his attitude assumes that, in talking on the Finance Bill, one is opposing a tax proposal. From a Government back bench point of view, it is most unlikely that one is necessarily opposing a particular tax proposal, but one may well have suggestions to improve it or alter in some way what is in the Bill. This is the normal situation of Government back benchers, irrespective of which party is in power. It may be true also of others in the House. In my view, the assumption about opposition which is embedded in our procedure is wrong.
How should the particular problem of the Finance Bill be dealt with? In my opinion—here I flatly disagree with the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) and others who spoke in the same sense—the Finance Bill ought to go upstairs to a Committee. I regard the proposal now before us in respect of the Finance Bill, which I shall support when it comes to the vote, as only a palliative and temporary measure. It is not what the majority of Members want.
I noticed that the representative of the Liberals, the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Richard Wainwright), spoke, contrary to their claim to desire reform, in favour of the tradition that the Finance Bill should remain on the Floor of the House. Who actually wants it to remain on the Floor of the House? [HON. MEMBERS: "We do."] If one assumes that every Member who spoke, even only once, in the normal years 1961 and 1962 is interested in the whole of the Finance Bill remaining on the Floor of the House —an assumption which I would not care to make—then, at the most, there are 175 out of 630 Members of the House of Commons who want to take an interest in the Finance Bill.

Dr. Reginald Bennett: This is the most bogus line of argument that I have ever heard. Just because, on a half day's debate, only six Members speak out of 630 does that mean that the 624 are not concerned?

Mr. English: I am not clear where the hon. Member gets his half day from in the case of exempted business. As I recollect it, Finance Bills have not been restricted to half days. The point is that there is a large body of Members—and there is no need to blink the fact—who are not particularly interested in the details, the minutiae of taxation proposals, or the detailed changes which may be possible in a Finance Bill. The same is true of any Bill. Members have their own specialities, and rightly so.
This House is most effective because different Members have different specialities and know their subjects. But they cannot be Jacks-of-all-trades, nor would they be effective if they tried to be.

Mr. Hirst: The question that we are considering so seriously is the supreme right of the individual Member to represent his constituents' views on any particular aspect of the Finance Bill, and if it goes to the Committee, 550 Members are excluded from that supreme right on fundamental legislation.

Mr. English: I entirely agree with the hon. Member and I was coming to this point. It does seem appropriate, in the case of the Finance Bill, to remove it from the Floor of the House, so that all those Members who are tied to this House while a few of them enjoy them-

selves on the Finance Bill on the Floor of the House, in the middle of the night, should not be kept here.
The sort of Committee that I would suggest is one of the proposals mentioned in the Report, and I congratulate the Committee on this Report because it discussed with great care all the alternatives. It did not just take one and push it at us. It has given us all the possibilities. Page vi of the Report mentions the possibility
that any Member should have the right to address the Standing Committee and move Amendments in it, but not to vote …
It seems that this is what is required, that a Member, as the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) says, should be able to go to the Committee and say, "We are discussing 267 Clauses, but it is Clause 122 which affects my constituency, and I want to come here and explain why it is so, and defend my constituents' interests". I agree with the hon. Member that this would be a good idea. What is unfortunate is that people who say that they do not want the Finance Bill to go into Committee are associating in their minds the Standing Committees of the House as they are at present with this proposal, and imagining that they would be excluded forever from discussing anything in the Committee. I do not think that this should be the case.

Sir D. Glover: This is terrible. If the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) is allowed to go and speak in the Committee with no power to vote, and therefore no power of delay, his constituents might just as well write the Committee a letter.

Mr. English: The fact that a Member is able to go and to make a speech there would take some time. The other point is that we are associated with other Members in this House, either in parties or in groups, and if an interesting case comes from a single Member, if it is a good case, perhaps other Members will take note of it and assist him, and some of these will be members of the Committee. It is also a pity that the Procedure Committee's Report dismissed this in a rather cavalier fashion. It raised the arguments of the hon. Member for Orms-kirk (Sir D. Glover) that it deprives Members not on the Committee of their vote when they come to speak on an Amendment or a Clause to which they attach great importance.
It is not wholly unusual in this House. Members have been known to make speeches in one sense and vote in a different sense because of our system of parties and whips. Nor would it wholly matter. We are talking about a Committee. One must also consider what one should do with the Finance Bill on the Floor of the House and that must be taken with any proposal to put the Finance Bill in Committee. I agree with hon. Members who, referring to the massive Finance Bill a year or two ago, said that they would certainly want to discuss Corporation Tax, Capital Gains Tax and so on.
This is reasonable and sensible. What one must endeavour to do is distinguish between principle and detail. I am not talking of splitting the Bill, the whole Bill must be put in the Committee. The detail should go to the Committee, leaving the principles to be discussed on the Floor of the House. Our American cousins have developed our procedure in this direction. They have used our Report and Third Reading stages to elaborate this into a portion of the time where principles of Bills can be discussed on the Floor of the House. I think that we could take a leaf from their book.
If there is any suggestion to put the Finance Bill in Committee, which would clear the Floor of the House of a tremendous amount of detailed business, then as a quid pro quosome of the time so taken from the Floor of the House should he given back to Members on the Finance Bill, to discuss major issues and principles connected with it.

Mr. Chapman: Would my hon. Friend comment on the alternative put forward by the Committee which was instead of allowing visiting Members to a Committee, the Bill should be recommitted to the full House? Its suggestion was that it should come back from Committee for, I think, a couple of days in order that the House, in full Committee, could discuss some of the big principles of taxation. Is not that better than visiting Members?

Mr. English: The second proposal of the Committee is a different version of the idea which I am putting forward, namely, that if one takes the Finance Bill off the Floor of the House, one should give some of the time thus saved back to Members on the Floor of the House so that prin-

ciples, rather than details can be discussed. To do that by recommitting the Bill might not be the right method. In effect the way that the Americans do it is to say, "These are the really contentious items upon which there is major opposition on principle, and these are the subjects upon which we will have the debates." I am not sure that recommitting the Bill is quite the right way to do it, because theoretically, when one recommits a Bill, one is allowing every detail or comma to be amended, whether or not it is important.

Mr. Chapman: I did not say that.

Mr. English: The hon. Member said "recommit", and that is the normal meaning of the word in the procedure of this House. The House as a whole wants to discuss principles of finance and taxation on the Floor of the House, but the majority of the House do not want to discuss the details of such proposals on the Floor. It is important that a Member should be able to put a particular point of view of his constituents before a Committee in his own words.

Mr. Blackburn: Why is it only on the question of taxation that a Member should be able to put a point of view of his constituents?

Mr. English: If we were discussing the procedure of every Bill, then the hon. Member would certainly have a suggestion which ought to be considered. The proposal that I am suggesting is only that which was the practice of this House until the 19th century. It was one of the 19th century reforms which altered this system. It was possible for any Member to go into a Committee and put his point of view, although he could not vote.

Mr. John Peyton: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that life in Standing Committee is hard enough already? Has he envisaged the possibility of an almost unending queque of hon. Members waiting to speak, with virtually no prospect of terminating the Committee's proceedings?

Mr. English: Of course I have envisaged that possibility. I am also aware that the procedure which this House adopted for many centuries and which has been inherited by the Congress of


the United States is not a totally impossible one. There will obviously need to be rules and I suggest that the Chief Secretary would not have made the same suggestion in his evidence if he thought that it would mean keeping his Finance Bills off the stocks forever. If the system worked, it might be wise to extend it to other Committees. We are here discussing a way to allow hon. Members to put, in their own words and not through the mouths of other hon. Members, the case on behalf of their constituents. Under our procedure an hon. Member can table an Amendment to a Measure which is in Committee upstairs, but he must persuade another hon. Member to speak to it.
This suggestion has been dismissed rather cavalierly in the Report, although I appreciate why. The Select Committee obviously felt that a large number of hon. Members would object to it. We must find some way of preserving the rights of the individual back bencher and at the same time preventing every detail of every Finance Bill having to be discussed on the Floor of the House.
Now upon the other aspect of this debate—the timetabling of Bills, if the timetable applying to a Bill contained roughly the amount of time desired by the Opposition multiplied by two, I do not believe that anyone would object to such a timetable. The effect of a timetable is to give Government back benchers an opportunity to speak. Presumably if the time required by the Opposition were multiplied by two, there would be ample time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Or by three."] Multiplied by two, perhaps—but multiplied by three, I do not believe that that will ever happen.
I am prepared to support the Government's proposal as one means of shortening the procedure. I hope, however, that when my right hon. Friend says that he is introducing it as an experiment, he is doing so not merely in an effort to keep our procedure short but to try to take off the Floor of the House the details of this and other Bills which have this ghastly tendency of being discussed in great detail by half a dozen hon. Members who are passionately interested in the subject while hundreds of other hon. Members must sit around on the premises waiting to vote at two o'clock in the

morning. This is not the way in which our legislature should be run.
In the end, the timetabling of Bills would not appear to be a completely desirable procedural reform. I hope that it is in this respect that, while I support my right hon. Friend in his desire to experiment, the Government will use this breathing space to consider how the basic substantive procedure applying to the Finance Bill and other legislation can be reformed.

12.24 p.m.

Dr. Reginald Bennett: The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) held out some alternative ideas which were certainly of great interest and originality. The one which was received with horror by a number of hon. Members was his idea that my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) and some of his colleagues, and an equivalent number of hon. Gentlemen opposite, should be visited in the Committee rooms upstairs by endless queues of hon. Members anxious to make speeches and equally anxious to shove off without having to attend those Committees any more.

Mr. Peyton: Would my hon. Friend address his mind to this question: what is the point of Government back benchers filibustering on a Government procedural Motion, such as we had from the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English)?

Dr. Bennett: That intervention passes my comprehension, perhaps because I am not sure what my hon. Friend is getting at.
This has been an illuminating debate, not least the illuminating opening remarks of the Leader of the House. I have known the right hon. Gentleman for upwards of 40 years and have always known him to be a formidable dialectician. Whether he is trying to be persuasive or overbearing, he is at all times a formidable Parliamentarian. I am not absolutely always quite so sure that I am as impressed by the grounds on which he bases his arguments as the skill with which he deploys them. I have often found this to underlie some of his ingenious arguments.
The right hon. Gentleman gave us a flash of tremendous candour, and I found that refreshing. He admitted at the outset


that all Government supporters wanted to send the Finance Bill upstairs. That is true. Almost every speech made by hon. Gentlemen opposite this morning has been in favour of adopting that course. However, this is, perhaps, a common quality of all members of the Government party which is in power. I believe that it was even to be noticed occasionally when my party was in office. It is fair to say that all Governments would like to see the Bill out of the way because it is an economy of effort for Treasury Ministers not to have to stand up to the barrage of abuse which they may get.

Mr. Blackburn: If what the hon. Gentleman is saying is correct, would he explain why I did not get more support from the Conservatives when they were in power?

Dr. Bennett: I forget what support the hon. Gentleman required. Was it medical?

Mr. Blackburn: Support in the efforts which I have been making for a number of years to get the Finance Bill sent to a Committee upstairs.

Dr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman has my profound sympathy. I am sure that he is finding some interesting alternatives being adduced now. If the present proposal fails, as I think it must, he may yet find the Leader of the House attempting to force the House to accede to the hon. Gentleman's wishes.
The Leader of the House said that both sides had agreed, in the Select Committee and in the previous debate, that voluntary agreements are desirable for the progress of any Bill. That is absolutely true, but the fallacy of the right hon. Gentleman's argument in this respect lies in the fact that voluntary agreements on an ad hoc basis, though desirable, are already common practice in the House. There is a certain amount of susurration behind the Chair on some occasions late at night and this occasionally leads to a Motion

suddenly being advanced for the House to report Progress; and, oddly enough, that Motion is suddenly carried.

Mr. Ronald Bell: What did my hon. Friend say goes on behind the Chair?

Dr. Bennett: I used a word which applies to the conferences which go on on the Government Front Bench occasionally and which certainly went on today throughout the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). The Leader of the House, the Chief Secretary and Patronage Secretary carried on their own private whispered debate. The Leader of the House will know that the word I used is a classical term meaning prolonged and silent whispering.
This sometimes goes on late at night when both sides are getting tired and when the Government are prepared to be more placatory and when the Opposition are prepared to forfeit some of their right to criticise. This is done in the joint desire to get to bed—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Our minds seem to have been moved towards that endeavour by the speech of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West. I should, perhaps, make it clear that it is a joint desire to get to bed and not a desire to jointly get to bed.
Certainly, voluntary agreements to timetable a Bill are universally desirable and approved. However, the real danger lies in the fact that the right hon. Gentleman wants to get the agreement firm before the Bill goes into Committee. This idea of getting a firm timetable agreement first would give a complete carte blanche to any form of Ministerial intransigence. The Opposition must have some weapon with which to make Ministers suffer for their intransigence, arrogance, ignorance, or—

It being half-past Twelve o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.

DERELICT INDUSTRIAL SITES

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]

12.30 p.m.

Mr. Robert Howarth: The problems arising from derelict industrial sites not only affect my constituency in Lancashire, but are of interest to the whole country, especially to those older industrial areas where most of the sites are located.
My interest in the subject was first aroused by a tragedy that took place in January in the very district in my constituency where I live. It occurred on the site of an old mill that had been cleared away. A group of young boys of 10 or 11 years of age had over some little time dug themselves what they called a "den". It fell in, and one of them was not rescued in time and so lost his life.
That brought to my mind a similar tragedy that occurred in my constituency in May, 1963. It was the day of the local elections, which I was contesting, and it was a beautful day. The children were on holiday because the schools were being used as polling stations, and two little girls, living in the ward I was contesting, who were playing alongside a disused canal, fell into it, and were drowned. I hope that my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will allow me to include these watercourses in my remarks, because in the older areas they are, if anything, even more dangerous than the old buildings.
Following the tragedy in January, I looked into the matter. I had correspondence with both my hon. Friend and the local authority, and I must say that I am not satisfied that local authorities are able to tackle this problem as I think it ought to be tackled. The subject of this debate is of widespread interest, and I speak on it from my observation of conditions in Lancashire, from the knowledge I have gained in travelling throughout the country, from the many reports by my hon. Friends that I have read, and from the Press generally.
The debris of the first Industrial Revolution is of a character that deserves special attention. I want, in the main, to confine my remarks to the problems

of which I know most and with which I am directly concerned—those in South Lancashire. It will come as news to no one that the twin pillars on which South Lancashire built its prosperity—cotton textiles and coal mining—have left behind them some of the greatest dangers to our children. I speak with feeling here, not only because of the tragedies occurring near to me but because I have young children—one of them a boy—and we all know the attraction that sites of that type have for children.
The cotton mills of Lancashire are mainly multi-storeyed buildings. Many of them are now derelict and have been abandoned. It is true that some are still being used, but the others are not. They are falling into a state of great disrepair and are very dangerous, particularly if children get into them. Even where the buildings have been demolished there remains the danger, not always appreciated, of the cellars. When buildings are removed, the cellars are not always dealt with satisfactorily and become a target for young children. They are potentially very dangerous. I must point out that the tragedy that took place in January was not directly concerned with the cellars of the old mill that had been cleared, but resulted from the children digging on the piece of land where the mill had originally stood.
Another danger from the old textile mills, which may not always be appreciated in other parts of the country, comes from what we call the mill lodges. These are large reservoirs which all mills at one time required to feed their boilers and to supply water for the various textile processes, such as bleaching. These lodges very often remain for long after the mills have disappeared. One reason for that is that they have been incorporated over the years into the water drainage system. We are now going back to the founding of the industry and to times well over 100 years ago.
It is very difficult to get these lodges drained, and in South Lancashire they take their regular toll of young children—to say year after year is not an exaggeration. The children play on the edges of the lodges, fall in, and are drowned. At whatever cost, these lodges should be drained and filled in as soon as possible. The danger presented by


those still in use can generally be overcome by adequate fencing.
I have referred to the tragedy of the two little girls who fell into the canal, and there is no doubt that the older industrial areas are plagued with disused canals which are a terrible danger to children. I am sorry to widen my remarks so much in this way, but I trust that my hon. Friend will bear with me, and appreciate our concern.
Although little of the debris from coal mining remains in my constituency, adjoining constituencies have their fair share of problems resulting from former mining activities. There are derelict buildings, though, in general, the shafts have been well bricked up and are difficult to enter. Perhaps the greatest danger resulting from the old coal mining activities results from subsidence. What we in Lancashire call "flashes"—areas of water that have collected in subsidences—represent a terrible danger to children. I need only remind hon. Members that a few winters ago, in the Wigan area, when children were playing on the frozen flashes the ice gave way and more than half a dozen of them were drowned.
So far, I have spoken only of the dangers from sites, but there is also the related question of appearance, of the effect on the amenity of an area, an effect which is often most unfortunate, to put it mildly. While in most areas local authorities are comprehensively redeveloping and rebuilding the centres of towns and making them once again an attractive environment, many textile mills, and certainly the coal mines, are on the peripheries of towns and not in the centre. The mills are often spread throughout the district.
It is precisely this probem which concerns me. While I am confident that local authorities will be able to deal with the problem of comprehensive development of the centre of towns, satisfactorily as a rule, on the outskirts of towns the problem is acute. The tragedy of January took place in such a district not far from my home, a district where the prospects of comprehensive development are decades away. The area of the town where the mill was demolished is quite pleasant, but the site has been left in an unattractive state, mainly because the

work was taken on by private developers whose money ran out, I think, so that the local authority was left not only with a dangerous but with an unsightly site to which citizens have every right to object strongly.
Lancashire loses all ways. Not only do we have the problem of the declining industries of textiles and coal mines, but, as they disappear, they leave behind eyesores which are dangerous and which add to the unattractive image of the old towns of Lancashire. It is no wonder that young people, particularly if they have had higher or further education, do not return to Lancashire. I know that that is connected with employment opportunities, but it is also related to the unattractive environment which is a legacy of the Industrial Revolution in Lancashire.
In passing, I pay tribute to those who are trying to recover our land from the treatment of past abuse. I refer to a report which was sent to all hon. Members some weeks ago by the British Ecological Society, headed:
Treating derelict land and industrial wastes".
I believe that that organisation set up a sub-committee a couple of years ago to go into the problems of dereliction arising from industrial waste, the extraction of coal, iron, building stone, chemical waste, domestic refuse tips, and so on.
It is a fascinating report, which is linked with what I am saying. Perhaps my hon. Friend will be able to comment on it and, if he cannot do so because I have not given him warning that I would mention it, perhaps he would care to read it and then comment. There are many people who are concerned about this subject of industrial dereliction and I hope that this report will receive the full attention of my hon. Friend and his colleagues.
Time is pressing and I want to leave my hon. Friend full opportunity to reply. I should not like to conclude this short debate without paying tribute to the Government for the action which they have already taken in the relocation of industry, about which we had a useful debate on Monday, and for their special assistance in housing to areas such as mine—I have already mentioned central


and comprehensive redevelopment. Tribute should also be paid to the Government's record in encouraging cultural building and activity in all parts of the country during their two and a half years of office.
I hope that I have been able to draw attention to a pressing problem which is serious and which worries many people in my constituency and all the older industrial areas. The community must accept responsibility at both a national and local level. Private and public authorities must accept their responsibilities and, with a combined operation, we can begin to remove the dangers and effect the improvements which we all want.
I conclude by reading extracts from a short letter which appeared, quite unsolicited, in the local newspaper two nights ago and which succinctly sums up the points which I have been trying to make. It is a letter from the father of a little boy of 4 who, last week, was missing for a number of hours. This was in an old town adjoining Bolton. The father explained how he went with the police and neighbours to look for his little boy and he wrote:
I saw derelict houses and church halls—deathtraps to the wandering child—evil smelling eyesores, decaying, rotting floorboards and loose roofs—nightmares of places urging the innocent to 'come and be harmed'.
But as my son did not seem to be there, I searched on and came to even greater dangers; the mill lodges which have served their purpose.
At nine o'clock my boy was found, unharmed; our mental torture was over and our family was one again. Or was it?
These death traps for children remain, and will remain much longer if we do not do something about them.
I ask my hon. Friend to take note of what I have said and, as soon as possible, to propose action which will help local authorities and private bodies to remove these dangers.

12.47 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): I am sure that the House would want to express its appreciation to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Robert Howarth) for raising this matter, and for showing by the manner in which he has done so—this is no surprise to those of

us who know him well—his deep concern for the safety and health of his constituents and the determination with which he pursues this matter. He has been in correspondence with me about these general problems for some time and I am not surprised that he should have wanted to raise the issue on the Ajournment. I am very happy to be able to give him as much assistance as I can about the problem.
I know that one of the things about which my hon. Friend is impatient is the lack of information which I have been able to give him about the size of the problem. We have no detailed breakdown of the statistics. We have been in touch with the General Register Office which has given us figures for the total number of deaths of childen under 15. It can tell us how many of these have occurred in mines and quarries and how many in industrial places or premises, but within those categories it cannot distinguish between derelict and other industrial sites, nor give figures about open water courses.
I have the figures for the last 10 years and I shall be happy to give them to my hon. Friend. I will not give them all in detail now in the short time which we have to discuss the matter. In the years 1963, 1964 and 1965, the numbers for mines and quarries were nine, three and three while for industrial places and premises they were five, four and nine. In relative terms those figures do not seem to be very great, not compared with road deaths and other dangers, but that is no answer to anyone who suffers a bereavement of this sort and it is no reason for any of us to be complacent about doing all we can to improve the position.
One of the difficulties is that some of the obvious dangers can be fairly easily removed by the erection of walls and by barricading premises. However, where this is done it is a direct challenge to the younger generation to remove such obstacles to their progress. The House might be inclined to say that small boys should not do such things, but I suspect that neither my hon. Friend nor I should be the first to cast a stone. Any attempt to prevent the young from getting somewhere they want to go to is a reason for their trying it. Often the tragedy is that it is the young, vigorous and lively boys who do such things and who get themselves into these serious dangers.
I do not want to preach a sermon. I would only mention what the coroner is reported as having said in the tragic case of Stephen Hall, my hon. Friend's constituent:
I hope that parents and others, if they are aware or have reason to suspect that their children are engaged in any operations of digging tunnels or caves in similar situations, will bring the operations to an end. However attractive it may be to the young children, it is a very serious danger because the ground can collapse at any time.
Short of vigilance on the part of parents, the training of children, and persuading them to see these dangers, there is probably no way, however much care is taken, of getting rid of all these problems.
The House would like to know that there are powers for dealing with these difficulties. If the source of danger is on land adjoining a street and is a danger to persons using the street, under Section 144 of the Highways Act, 1959, a local authority can serve a notice on the owner of the land requiring him to do the necessary work and itself step in and do it if he does not do it.
Where the dangers are away from a street, if the owner co-operates, the local authority can consider whether the cost of necessary work is expenditure it can incur under Section 6 of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) Act, 1963. This provides the power to spend money in the general interests of the inhabitants. A local authority must watch that there are no other powers enabling it to do this.
In the case of mines and quarries, under Section 151 of the Mines and Quarries Act, 1954, certain unfenced mineshafts and quarries which are accessible from a highway or place of public resort are deemed to be statutory nuisances and the local authority can step in under the Public Health Act.

Mr. Peter Mahon: Is not a waiting time involved? Is the local authority supposed to stay its hand until it can see that the person concerned will not take action, even when there is danger? Or can the local authority under the Act take immediate action to abate the danger?

Mr. MacColl: The Public Health Act empowers a local authority to step in and abate the nuisance. It is for the clerk to the authority to judge whether the authority can satisfy the court that it is acting properly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, East raised the general question of attack on derelict land, apart from the particular question of mill lodges. We have introduced a specific grant of 50 per cent. for areas which are not in development areas. Not only my constituency in Lancashire, but my hon. Friend's constituency, is able to get the grant. We have issued Circular No. 17/67 asking local authorities to conduct a survey of their areas and produce a programme of what areas should be attacked. In particular, the National Coal Board has co-operated and is offering its know-how to us. We are now waiting for the local authorities to reply to our circular and give us the information on which we can prepare the programme. There is the backing of grant in appropriate cases.
My hon. Friend raised the question of danger to amenity. Circular 52/65, dated 6th July, 1965, also emphasised the danger of drowning and again reminded local authorities of their powers. My hon. Friend knows which Government were in power on 6th July, 1965, because he became a Member of the House only a few months before that. This shows that we have not been complacent, but have taken the initiative.
We are waiting a response to these circulars. We are anxious to do what we can to help. It is not enough merely to regard this as a problem to be solved by stopping access. That is important, but, unless it is accompanied by the training and education of children in matters of safety, nothing we do will get over these difficulties.
My hon. Friend mentioned canals. I live on one. I know from experience that the best way of luring children to a canal is to erect a notice saying, "Trespassers will be prosecuted. No admittance". The challenge is immediately created for children to get to the canal. The problem cannot be dealt with in a purely negative way.
We are aware of the problem. Hon. Members have pressed us about it. We have sent a note to the local authority associations specifically referring to the Bolton case as being one of the few which would appear not to be covered by the Highways Act. There is some doubt whether it is covered. We have asked local authorities for their views. If they have evidence that the existing powers


need to be strengthened, we would like to consult them in the hope that more can be done.
Nobody could be complacent about the present position. The waste of life from these accidents is appalling. If we can find a way of assisting, we want to do

so. We want neither to be complacent nor to give the impression that there is nothing that local authorities can do.

The debate having been concluded, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER suspended the Sitting till half-past Two o'clock, pursuant to Order.

Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Oral Answers to Questions — BOARD OF TRADE

London Airport (Night Landings)

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the President of the Board of Trade why he informed the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Putney that at London Airport, Heathrow, between April and September, 1966, there were 8,991 night landings on runways 28R and 28L alone; and why these flights were permitted, in view of the official limitation of 3,500 night landings in this period.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu): The total of 8,991 includes both jet and non-jet aircraft landing between midnight and 0800 G.M.T. The summer limit of 3,550 night movements related to jet aircraft only between 2330 and 0600 local time from 1st April to 31st October.

Mr. Jenkins: Is it not unsatisfactory that figures should be given which are not reconcilable with one another so that, as a result of the information given, people can come to a wrong conclusion about what is being done? Second, ought not my hon. Friend to make these limitations much more effective, and, further, will he ensure that the limitations are carried on next year on no less stringent a basis?

Mr. Mallalieu: Provided that it is understood that one figure is the total and the other is for jets, there should be no confusion. The reason for the distinction is that, on the whole, non-jet aircraft are less noisy than jets. We are considering what is to happen next year.

Air Service Licences

Mr. Fortescue: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will, in the public interest, direct the Air Transport Licensing Board that, when granting air service licences, it shall specify in each case a minimum frequency of service and the introduction of service by a given date, failing either of which the licence shall be transferred to another applicant.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Douglas Jay): No, Sir. I have no powers to issue such a direction, even if it were justifiable.

Mr. Fortescue: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is the practice in the United States, where the Civil Aeronautics Board has this kind of control over airlines? Does he agree that, if this power were taken, or the regulations were amended to make it possible, the operation of our domestic air routes would be far more efficient?

Mr. Jay: It may be the practice in the United States, but we are operating here under legislation passed by a Government supported by the party opposite.

Airlines (Profitability)

Mr. Fortescue: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will seek so to amend the Civil Aviation (Licensing) Regulations that the Air Transport Licensing Board has the power to investigate fully and publicly the reasons why various airlines show wide variations in profitability on various routes.

Mr. Jay: No, Sir; I do not think that this is the right function for the A.T.L.B.

Mr. Fortescue: In view of that reply, will the President of the Board of Trade say whether, in his opinion, such a power would be properly vested in any other body but the A.T.L.B., or whether it would be desirable for its own sake? Is he aware that it is the practice of the United States to have this power also?

Mr. Jay: The Question relates to the powers of the A.T.L.B. Whether some other authority, perhaps my Department, should have such powers is another question.

Mr. R. Carr: But is it not difficult for the right hon. Gentleman to decide, on an appeal from the A.T.L.B., whether for example, domestic fare increases are justified if he has not proper information about the profitability and efficiency of the different airlines?

Mr. Jay: There is some force in that argument, but the power does not at present exist.

Aircraft Landings (Crosswind Speeds)

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the minimum crosswind speed for the landing of Vanguard, Comet and Trident aircraft, respectively.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: The maximum wind component at right angles to the runway in which it has been demonstrated that the aircraft can land safely on a dry runway is as stated in the flight manual for each type of aircraft: 27 knots for the Vanguard, 28 knots for the Comet and 30 knots for the Trident.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that as pure jet aircraft replace other types, the diversion rate at Edinburgh airport on account of crosswind is likely to jump alarmingly? What steps is he now taking to make certain that a second runway is ready for the time, only a few years away, when the majority of aircraft movements at Edinburgh will be by jet?

Mr. Mallalieu: We are actively considering the future of this airport with the Edinburgh Corporation. I am to go up there next month, I hope, for a final settlement on this.

Investment Grants

Mr. Higgins: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has now sought an estimate of the order of magnitude of the effects on private investment of the revised investment grants; and whether he will give such an estimate to the House.

Mr. Biffen: asked the President of the Board of Trade what has been the estimated effect of the changes in investment grant announced in December, 1966, and March, 1967, on the level of investment in manufacturing industry expected during 1967.

Mr. Jay: This influence cannot be separately measured.

Mr. Higgins: Do not the Government produce short-run forecasts before and after policy changes? Was no such estimate made in this case, or, if it was, why cannot the House have the information?

Mr. Jay: The hon. Gentleman has asked me to measure the effect of this particular change, but other things happened at the same time, and it would not be possible from the figures to attribute one effect to one cause.

Mr. Biffen: Would the right hon. Gentleman care to comment on the excellent speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) in the Budget debate, when he suggested that it was the prospect of profit rather than the size of these grants which was likely to determine the level of manufacturing investment?

Mr. Jay: No, Sir; I think that it is even more the size of the market. But that is another issue.

Mr. Hall-Davis: Is the President of the Board of Trade satisfied that the proportion of total industrial investment found to qualify for grant is in accordance with the estimates prepared by the Board of Trade when the Industrial Development Bill was before the House?

Mr. Jay: Yes, Sir. I have no reason to suppose that that is not so.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the total value of investment for which investment grants have been applied for to date; what percentage this is of total investment undertaken by British industry; and how many applications, and to what value, have been turned down or held up because of the discretionary clauses in the Industrial Development Act to date.

Mr. Jay: By 14th April, 1967, applications relating to £114,726,000 had been received in respect of investment in the first quarter of 1966. I estimate that this represents about half of the investment qualifying for grant under Part I of the Industrial Development Act. Applications so far received for the second quarter of 1966 total £35 million. It would cost too much to analyse how much of these amounts have been disallowed because of the exercise of the Board's discretion.

Mr. Osborn: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the firms entitled to a grant are actually applying for it, and that the scheme is working satisfactorily.


or is there a need to give further information to industry to ensure that the scheme as envisaged is going to work to the advantage of industry?

Mr. Jay: As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, we have published a very full leaflet and distributed it widely, and all the information is available. There is no early closing date for these applications, and I think it is just a matter of the rate at which firms are moving.

Mr. Barnett: I appreciate that the leaflet was a good one, and worthwhile to industry, but can my right hon. Friend answer the question? What percentage has industry submitted of the applications which he personally expected from his estimate of the amount of investment in arriving at the figures which the Chancellor of the Exchequer put in his financial statement?

Mr. Jay: We did not feel that it was possible to make an exact estimate, but for safety sake we allowed for a rather more rapid rate of applications by firms than has so far materialised.

Cotton Goods (Imports from Portugal)

Mr. Robert Howarth: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the 12 principal importers of low-cost cotton yarn and cloth from Portugal for the last two years, giving details of the companies' names and location of head office.

Mr. Jay: No, Sir. It is not normal practice to disclose information about the affairs of individual firms.

Mr. Howarth: None the less, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a genuine public interest to know who are these people who are determined to line their pockets irrespective of the effect on the Lancashire textile industry? Is he aware of the report which appeared in The Times last week of what was reputed to be a complaint of Portuguese manufacturers who said that British importers were threatening them with legal action because they, the Portuguese, were restricting the imports which they were sending to this country? Is not this outrageous?

Mr. Jay: It may be of public interest, but it cannot be a duty of my Department

to reveal information which it has received confidentially. Indeed, if this information were disclosed, some people might learn where cheaper imported products were available.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: If the right hon. Gentleman cannot disclose that information—I understand that he cannot—will he now disclose the details of his agreement with the Portuguese authorities, which has been widely reported in some detail in the Press?

Mr. Jay: No, Sir. I must adhere to the statement which I have already made, which was carefully agreed with the Portuguese authorities.

Textile Goods (Labelling)

Mr. Robert Howarth: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will introduce legislation requiring the comprehensive and accurate labelling of textile goods to protect the public; and if he will follow this up with a publicity campaign to ensure that people do not inadvertently buy cheap imported goods of poor quality.

Mr. Jay: I intend to seek powers in the Protection of Consumers (Trade Descriptions) Bill to require goods of any description to be labelled with information for the benefit of consumers. The need for publicity will be considered at the time.

Mr. Howarth: I thank my right hon. Friend for that encouraging reply, but is he aware that much of the labelling of textile goods is either non-existent for indication of origin or is rather misleading, coming under the heading of, "Made in the British Empire", whatever that means?

Mr. Jay: I agree that our powers to control this kind of thing are at present inadequate. This is why we are anxious to introduce further legislation as soon as possible.

Sir C. Osborne: I sympathise with the textile workers of Lancashire on this issue and with workers in other parts of the country, but how can the Indian textile workers rise out of their deep poverty if we refuse to buy their goods?

Mr. Jay: That is another question which the hon. Gentleman can answer just as well as I can.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these imported cotton goods are being bought dirt cheap because of low wages in Portugal, yet they are being sold at such a high margin of profit that the consumer in this country does not benefit?

Mr. Jay: My hon. Friend knows that we now have a far tighter system of import control on cotton textiles than we have ever had before.

Finns (Research and Development Departments)

Mr. David Watkins: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will seek to offer additional incentives to firms to establish their research and development departments, as well as their manufacturing activities, in the north-east of England development area.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. George Darling): The incentives now available should act as a considerable inducement to firms to establish research and development activities in the development areas. We do not at present contemplate new forms of inducement under Board of Trade legislation, but my hon. Friend's attention is drawn to the proposal for a regional employment premium on which the Government recently published a memorandum.

Mr. Watkins: I thank my right hon. Friend for that helpful and detailed reply, but does not he agree that an increase in industrial research and development would make an important contribution to the long-term economic stability of the north-east region?

Mr. Darling: I entirely agree, and Ministers have recently discussed this problem with the chairman and members of the Northern Economic Planning Board. We shall give a considered reply to their recommendations on this point.

Mr. Corfield: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the importance of siting Government research establishments in these areas? What is being done in this respect?

Mr. Darling: The siting of Government establishments is under consideration all the time. They are not always on the move, but, whenever we can get them on the move, we hope to put them in development areas.

Helicopter Services (Central London Heathrow)

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the President of the Board of Trade what regulations he lays down for helicopter services from Central London to Heathrow, with regard to noise to residents and flight-paths.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: There are at present no e' regular helicopter services between Central London and Heathrow Airport. I am considering, from the air traffic control, safety and noise points of view, the routes and heights which might be adopted for the proposed B.E.A. service, if it were to come into operation.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Would the Minister ask his right hon. Friend to introduce regulations to prohibit these helicopter services, because if B.E.A. introduces them and the Labour Government allow them, the Government will be annoying Battersea, Wandsworth, Putney, Richmond, Twickenham and Feltham?

Mr. Mallalieu: I do not want to prejudge the issue, but I very well understand the concern of the hon. Gentleman and many other hon. Members about the noise problem, and we shall look at this with great care.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the political complexion of the Greater London Council has unfortunately changed and that it is therefore possible that in its newness it might conceivably grant permission, for which application has been made, for a helicopter port in Battersea? Should that unfortunate eventuality occur, will my hon. Friend and his right hon. Friend intervene to make sure that such a decision is overruled?

Mr. Mallalieu: That is a very hypothetical question, but, even if the answer went the wrong way from my hon. Friend's point of view, we are still a long-stop at the Board of Trade.

Aircraft Noise (Sound-proofing of Houses)

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now amend the law so as to increase the grant towards sound-proofing of houses


against aircraft noise to 70 per cent. of the cost.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: No, Sir. The 50 per cent. contribution, subject to an overriding limit, follows the precedent of the standard house improvement grants.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the soundproofing scheme has been a failure, that only about 100 people have applied for it, and that it could be made a success if the red tape could be cut down and the grant improved to 70 per cent.?

Mr. Mallalieu: I agree that the response so far has been very disappointing. We are doing everything we can to cut any red tape and if the hon. Gentleman has examples of any that still exists I should like to hear about them. The British Airports Authority will launch a further publicity campaign in the coming months to tell people exactly how to apply for the grants and what is available.

B.O.A.C. (Boeing 707 Aircraft)

Mr. R. Carr: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give an assurance that it remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government only to grant waiver of duty on Boeing 707 aircraft purchased by the British Overseas Airways Corporation on the specific understanding that such aircraft are required for all-cargo purposes and will not be used in any other rôle; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Jay: I would refer the right hon. Member to the Answer given to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Ian Lloyd) on 15th March last.—[Vol. 743, c. 486–7.]

Mr. Carr: Will the right hon. Gentleman realise the need to be specific about this? Is he aware that I have in front of me a letter from his right hon. Friend the then Minister of Aviation, written last August, stating that the Government's policy was that which is implied in my Question? Is he aware that much anxiety could be avoided if he would confirm that?

Mr. Jay: There has been no change in Government policy, but the position under the law is that the duty can be remitted only if similar aircraft are not at the time procurable in the United

Kingdom, and I must act under those powers.

Mr. Fortescue: To be more specific, could the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether duty is being remitted on the third cargo plane being imported by B.O.A.C., on which we are all waiting for a decision?

Mr. Jay: Not without notice.

B.O.A.C. (United States Supersonic Transport Aircraft)

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: asked the President of the Board of Trade what request he has received to authorise additional advance payment by the British Overseas Airways Corporation in order to preserve their delivery position in respect of their provisional order for the projected United States supersonic transport aircraft.

Mr. Jay: I have recieved no such request.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Would the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the British Corporations will not be called on to make a more rigorous contribution to underwriting the United States S.S.T. than comparable airlines have been called on to make for the British S.S.T., the Concord?

Mr. Jay: I have received no such request, but I shall certainly take no action which would put British aviation at a disadvantage compared with its competitors.

B.O.A.C. Scheduled Services (Cancelled Flights)

Mr. Hastings: asked the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the number of flights on scheduled services now likely to be cancelled by the British Overseas Airways Corporation during 1967 and of the loss of revenue which this represents.

Mr. Jay: I understand that B.O.A.C. now envisages a total of 37, instead of its earlier estimate of 54, round trip cancellations during 1967, a reduction of 17. Against this, eight additional flights to Canada are planned. B.O.A.C. estimates that the possible net loss of revenue will not exceed £150,000.

Mr. Hastings: But do not the latest Interavia figures show that the seats


offered and passengers carried in the first two months of this year compared with 1966 are definitely down? In order to avoid the loss of valuable foreign exchange, will the right hon. Gentleman consider advising the Corporation to charter aircraft to meet its schedules until the fleet is re-established?

Mr. Jay: That is something which should be left to B.O.A.C., but as I have explained before the number of flights affected is exceedingly small in relation to B.O.A.C.'s total operations.

Airlines (Freight Traffic)

Mr. Hastings: asked the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the growth of freight traffic likely to be carried by British nationalised and independent airlines on the basis of their present plans; how this compares with the estimates of the total growth of world traffic; and whether he is satisfied with the percentage of world traffic likely to be obtained by British operators.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: I estimate that international freight traffic carried by British airlines is likely to grow by at least 20 per cent. annually in the next few years. Current plans of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. provide for growth of this order, but I do not have similar figures for the independent airlines. Published forecasts of future world growth are of doubtful reliability. The volume will vary from region to region, but I am confident that British airlines are striving for as large a share as possible in this highly competitive market.

Mr. Hastings: But is it not a fact that B.O.A.C. at the moment has only two Boeing freighters whereas Pan-American, for instance, is operating nine services in and out of London Airport every week? Would not the Minister agree that any significant increase in freight handling depends on the installation of data processing equipment at London Airport? When may we expect a decision on that?

Mr. Mallalieu: I should need notice of the second part of that question. B.O.A.C. has a third Boeing 707 320C freight aircraft on order and is seeking approval for a fourth. I shall make a statement on that last point as soon as possible.

Mr. Onslow: Why does the Minister need notice of the second part of my hon.

Friend's supplementary question? Does he not understand that it is absolutely crucial that Heathrow should be capable of handling the vast increase in traffic which is coming forward, and that this cannot happen unless E.D.P. equipment is installed?

Mr. Mallalieu: That did not happen to be part of the question.

Mr. Rose: In view of the increase of traffic, would my hon. Friend say what plans there are for the provisions of a new runway at Ringway Airport. Manchester, which would be capable of dealing with transatlantic freight flights?

Mr. Mallalieu: That is certainly another question.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Will the Minister bear in mind that Wales is a part of Britain? What plans has he to encourage the growth of air freight traffic in Wales?

Mr. Mallalieu: Again, I am afraid that that is another question. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put it down on the Order Paper.

Monopolies Commission (Household Detergents)

Mr. Ridley: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he intends to introduce legislation to amend the Monopolies and Mergers Act, 1965, in order to give himself power to order firms producing detergents and soaps to reduce expenditure on advertising.

Mr. Winnick: asked the President of the Board of Trade what request he has made to Unilever Limited to reduce the prices of their household detergents, as recommended by the Monopolies Commission; and if he will make a statement.

Sir J. Eden: asked the President of the Board of Trade what consultations he has now had with the manufacturers of household detergents and soaps concerning the recent report of the Monopolies Commission; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Dickens: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he proposes to introduce legislation to amend the Monopolies and Mergers Act, 1965, in order to implement the recommendations of the Monoplies Commission Report on the supply of household detergents.

Mr. Jay: With permission I will answer Questions No. 17, 49, 74 and 78 at the end of Question Time.

Development Areas (Contractors' plant)

Mr. Ridley: asked the President of the Board of Trade how he intends to prevent contractors' plant, purchased for use in a development area with a 45 per cent. investment grant, being subsequently used outside a development area.

Mr. Jay: The recipient of the grant has a legal obligation to notify the Board of Trade if the plant is moved outside the development area within three years and in that case to repay an appropriate proportion of the grant. Inspectors from investment grant offices will visit premises to ensure that conditions of grant are being observed.

Mr. Ridley: Does not that make absolute nonsense of the right hon. Gentleman's investment grant policy? How can he possibly know whether a particular piece of equipment is on one contractor's site or on another? Is he aware that his whole policy of regional discrimination will fall down on demarcation troubles of that sort if he is not more careful?

Mr. Jay: If that is so, it makes absolute nonsense of our Income Tax law for the past 50 years or more, because under the old capital allowances one had to have similar provisions for items of plant if they were sold.

Factories (Transfer)

Mr. Eadie: asked the President of the Board of Trade what procedures his department carries out when a proposal is put to them to transfer a factory from one county to another.

Mr. Jay: For a new factory of more than 5,000 sq. ft. the usual industrial development certificate procedure applies.

Mr. Eadie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my Question is prompted by a certain amount of anger and frustration felt by some of my constituents because such a transfer has taken place? Does he not think that, because the taxpayers' money is involved to some extent, there should be an investigation into the finances concerned in this matter?

Mr. Jay: I do not think that we should normally wish to intervene where a firm travels from one part of a development area to another. As far as our powers go, of course we cannot prevent, although we might try to dissuade, a firm moving from one area. But we have the power to grant or refuse an I.D.C. for it to build another factory.

Mr. Hall-Davis: When an application is received in connection with the removal of a factory into a development area, is account taken of the effect on employment in the area from which it is moving?

Mr. Jay: Certainly, but it is very rare for a firm to move from one area to another. In the vast majority of cases, an extension is placed in a new area.

Motor Car Insurance

Mr. Raphael Tuck: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will initiate legislation requiring all vehicle drivers to insure against third party risks with an insurance company recognised by the British Insurance Association and prohibiting insurance brokers from effecting such insurance for any person except with an insurance company so recognised.

Mr. Darling: No, Sir.

Mr. Tuck: As half a million people have found themselves without cover during the past five years because of the failure of the insurance company concerned, and as my right hon. Friend has assured me that he will consider any proposal in the public interest, would he do something about this and consider doing in the public interest what Saskatchewan did with success 20 years ago, namely, take the insurance companies into public ownership?

Mr. Darling: I understand the motive behind my hon. Friend's proposal, but there are several perfectly sound reputable companies undertaking motor insurance that are not members of the British Insurance Association. We think that it would be quite wrong to prohibit their activities. In any case, we believe that the new proposals for strengthening Board of Trade supervision over insurance companies in the Companies Bill will achieve the purpose which my hon. Friend has in mind.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Would not the simplest way be to put down an Amendment to the Companies Bill requiring that the starting date for insurance companies should be £100,000 and not £50,000?

Mr. Darling: That is another question. It is far more important to make sure that the solvency ratio is correct.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now take steps to make car insurance a public responsibility, providing machinery so that cars have to be insured automatically at the same time and in the same office as they are taxed.

Mr. Darling: No, Sir. The Companies Bill contains provisions to improve the supervisory powers of the Board of Trade over motor vehicle and other classes of insurance.

Mr. Roberts: Would not the Minister agree that the essence of good insurance is simplicity in buying the security, and that this proposal maximises security while at the same time removing some of the present duplication between taxation carried out by local authority staff and insurance by private companies. Does he realise—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have speeches at Question Time.

Mr. Roberts: Does my right hon. Friend realise that a simple disc would show that they were both taxed and insured?

Mr. Darling: I am quite confident that there is great value in simplicity, but the great need of insurance is to provide adequate cover for the risks involved.

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: Has the right hon. Gentleman given any consideration to another suggestion put forward by the B.I.A. that this type of insurance should be undertaken only by companies which have been operating for a certain number of years and have proved their worth?

Mr. Darling: Yes. We have given a great deal of consideration to that proposal, and to some extent it is covered by the new provisions in the Companies Bill.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Would not my right hon. Friend think it in the public interest that motorists should be compelled to display their insurance cover on their windscreen just as they display their road fund licence?

Mr. Darling: That is something which might well be considered, but it is not in this Question.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will the right hon. Gentleman resist any temptation to have bad insurance risks carried either by the taxpayer or by fellow motorists rather than by the individual risk himself?

Mr. Darling: That is what I had in mind when I said that the important thing was to make sure that there was adequate cover for the risks.

Goods (Country of Origin)

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will introduce legislation to change the mark "Empire Made" to some more precise mark of origin, such as "Made in Hong Kong".

Mr. Jay: The Protection of Consumers (Trade Descriptions) Bill, which I shall introduce as soon as possible, would provide powers to require any goods to be marked with the name of the country of origin.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I am obliged for that Answer. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this reform is as much the desire of Hong Kong as of Lancashire and that most of the textile goods from Hong Kong now go to the United States, where this requirement is necessary in any case? Is he aware that his Answer will give great satisfaction in all parts of the House?

Turnhouse Airport

Mr. Stodart: asked the President of the Board of Trade why the engineering and construction of 8,400 ft. of runway at Turnhouse Airport, Edinburgh, will take three and a half years.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: This is the estimate given to us by the Ministry of Public Building and Works based on its experience of runway projects at other aerodromes, and on its knowledge of this


particular site, both of which are considerable. The project, no firm decision on which has yet been taken, would involve, among other things, diverting the Gogar Burn.

Mr. Stodart: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, if his programme is right, getting the airport into international use in time for the Commonwealth Games in 1970 will be completely out of the question? Can he say whether it is the case, as was reported elsewhere, that the United States has built a 9,000 ft. runway in three months? What on earth is the matter with us if it takes us three and a half years?

Mr. Mallalieu: I must say that the length of time that I got for this Answer surprised me. We have consulted outside contractors, as well as the Ministry of Pubic Building and Works, and this seems to be a fairly firm estimate. I am afraid that it is absolutely out of the question that we shall be able to get the new runway ready in time for 1970 and the Commonwealth Games.

Mr. R. Carr: Would the Minister look into this again in view of the information given to him by my hon. Friend? Apart from the question of building a runway, and the time taken to do that, I have been sitting here for 18 months hearing about pending decisions on this matter.

Mr. Mallalieu: Some part of the period that I have announced is not for the actual construction. About one and a quarter years is needed for detailed planning and engineering and so on. In view of what the hon. Gentleman has said, I should very much like to have the information in detail, and I will make further inquiries about American methods.

Mr. Stodart: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many movements of aircraft in and out of Turnhouse Airport, Edinburgh, took place during 1966; and what were the equivalent figures in respect of Ringway Airport, Manchester, and the airports at Renfrew and Abbots-inch.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: Provisional figures of total movements of aircraft in and out of Turnhouse Airport, Edinburgh, during 1966 were 50,257. Equivalent figures in respect of Ringway Airport,

Manchester, were 49,875; Renfrew and Abbotsinch 37,252. Provisional figures for commercial air transport movements in 1966 were Turnhouse 10,383; Ring-way 35,467; Renfrew and Abbotsinch 30,917.

Mr. Stodart: In view of these figures for Turnhouse, which seem to be extremely substantial compared with the others, can the hon. Gentleman explain why it is that Turnhouse is the only one of the three, and I believe the only airport in Britain, which has no radar equipment of any kind? Will he see that equipment is installed?

Mr. Mallalieu: Of the total aircraft movements at Turnhouse, 66 per cent. are military, or aero club flights. I will have a look at this point.

"Torrey Canyon"

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is satisfied that the passage between the Scilly Isles and the mainland is safe for the operation of very large ships; whether he is satisfied that sufficient warning is given of navigational hazards of this passage; and whether, in the case of the "Torrey Canyon", any steps were taken to warn her master that she was standing into danger.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: I am advised that the main passage, which is between the Seven Stones lightship and the mainland, is safe and that the navigational hazards of the area are adequately marked. The crew of the Seven Stones light vessel fired rockets and displayed signals meaning "You are standing into danger".

Tankers (Size)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the President of the Board of Trade what consideration he is giving to limiting the size of tankers permitted to use British ports; and whether his forthcoming discussions with other maritime nations will include proposals for international agreement to limit the size of such ships.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: I doubt if restrictions on the size of tankers are likely to be the most effective approach to this problem. The requirements of safety can be tackled in other ways which do not involve sacrificing the economic


advantages that the development of large tankers has made possible.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: While accepting that there are many other methods open to the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask whether he views with equanimity the proposed building of tankers running up to the half million ton level? Does he really think that ships of this size can be safely handled in crowded waters, and does he view with equanimity the damage that they would do in the event of an accident?

Mr. Mallalieu: I certainly do not contemplate the latter part of the question with equanimity, but provided some changes and developments are carried out in the construction of these large tankers, providing a greater number of smaller tanks rather than a few large tanks, the danger can be minimised, and the economic advantages are really tremendous.

Mr. Peter Mills: Will the Minister try to ensure that these very large tankers, if we have to have them, at least keep away from the fishing grounds of the South-West, as they present a very real danger to the fishermen there?

Mr. Mallalieu: The routing of tankers is one of the things that we will be discussing this coming week in I.M.C.O.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that these large tankers are sufficiently manœuvrable and if not, should not some further regulations be made about this?

Mr. Mallalieu: Again, that is a matter which will be discussed in I.M.C.O. I am not altogether satisfied on that point.

Newbattle Industrial Estate, Midlothian

Mr. Eadie: asked the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Scotland relative to the Newbattle Industrial Estate, Midlothian.

Mr. Darling: We have been fully informed by my noble friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland of his discussions with Midlothian County Council. I welcome suitable developments on the Newbattle Estate.

Mr. Eadie: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that very satisfactory Answer, may I ask whether he is aware that there is some disquiet in this area about the future contraction of the mining industry? Will he agree that the labour force in this area has earned itself the reputation of being among the finest in the country?

Mr. Darling: Yes, Sir. We are well aware of the attractive circumstances of the Newbattle Estate, and will do all that we possibly can to get additional factories there.

Mr. Stodart: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the attractiveness of the Newbattle Estate is drawing people out of the districts of Edinburgh, Leith and Portobello, where there is no investment grant available, and thereby causing double handling to get to the Port of Leith?

Mr. Darling: That is another Question. I would have thought that the unemployment circumstances in that part of Scotland would have had the sympathy of the hon. Gentleman.

Dunstable (Diversification of Industry)

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the President of the Board of Trade what study he has made of the letters sent to him by the Dunstable Borough Council and the West Dunstable Residents' Association in connection with the diversification of industry in the area; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. Darling: The views expressed have been noted. It has, however, been explained that the Government's distribution of industry policy requires that first priority be given to the needs of the development areas. Proposals to set up new industry in the South-East are examined carefully in the light of this policy.

Mr. Roberts: Would the Minister agree that areas such as South Bedfordshire, which are dominated by the motor industry, are particularly subject to economic fluctuation? Does he agree that unemployment should not be the only criteria and that we have to provide these areas with the planned growth of the motor industry to start with and,


secondly, considerable diversification of industry in order to provide a planned pattern of growth?

Mr. Darling: Yes. There are other areas in the country depending very largely upon a single industry. Fortunately, there is virtually full employment in the Dunstable area, and I am sure that the overriding needs of less fortunate areas are properly appreciated. I can tell my hon. Friend that the Board of Trade Regional Controller has offered to meet the Residents' Association to discuss distribution of industry policy with the members.

Investment Grants (Scotland)

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the number and value of applications for investment grants received from firms in Scotland to the latest convenient date.

Mr. Darling: 1,177 applications to the value of £19,079,686 had been received by 14th April, 1967.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that this rate falls far below Government expectations? Is this a commentary on the failure of the system of investment grants, or a sign of the collapse of manufacturing investment in Scotland, or both?

Mr. Darling: No. The first assumption is incorrect. We had assumed that when the scheme got into full swing we would have in Scotland 2,000 to 3,000 claims each quarter. It is perhaps too early to come to any definite conclusion about whether the estimate will be reached, but it is certainly going in the direction we anticipated. I certainly do not agree with any of the observations in the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question.

Jute Industry (Scotland)

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is his intention to proceed with a review of the protection of the Scottish jute industry before the end of the current year.

Mr. Jay: I shall be considering this later in the year in the light of trading conditions since the removal of the temporary import charge, and of the situation in Dundee.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the decision to delay the review was caused by the rising level of unemployment in Dundee and area, thanks to Government policies? Can he tell us precisely when he expects the review to be completed? When he makes it, will he bear in mind that many of the burghs of Angus and Perthshire are more dependent on the jute industry than Dundee itself?

Mr. Jay: No. We took great care to hold the review at the right time because we are more keen to avoid unemployment in Dundee than the previous Government.

E.F.T.A. (Non Tariff Barriers)

Mr. Arthur Davidson: asked the President of the Board of Trade when he expects the European Free Trade Association to make a study of non-tariff barriers to trade, including rebate and subsidy arrangements, in view of the effects on the Lancashire textile industry of any such arrangements in other European Free Trade Association countries.

Mr. Jay: Non-tariff barriers to trade are kept under constant review in E.F.T.A. and a, group of experts is currently studying Government aids, including rebate and subsidy arrangements.

Mr. Davidson: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that there is a suspicion in Lancashire that Portugal is offending the spirit if not the letter of existing E.F.T.A. agreements? In view of the disastrous effects which Portuguese imports are having on Lancashire, would my right hon. Friend press very hard for an early review?

Mr. Jay: If my hon. Friend has any evidence, which I do not have, that Portugal is contravening the E.F.T.A. agreements, I should be glad to examine it. But, as he knows, my expectation is that textile imports from Portugal over the coming months will be at a lower level than has been the case recently.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Is it not rather important that the President of the Board of Trade should say that he has no evidence of Portugal infringing the regulations, otherwise doubt is cast against one of our partners in E.F.T.A.?

Mr. Jay: I did say so.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the expectation to which he referred just now is not shared in the industry generally and that the opinion is gradually spreading throughout Lancashire on both sides of the textile industry that the Board of Trade has simply ceased to care about what happens to the textile industry in this country as long as its own industrial arrangements are not concerned?

Mr. Jay: I must ask my hon. Friend to watch the figures.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that free activities on the part of trade unions are permitted in Portugal and that as a result wages have reached an appropriate level in that country and that there is not artificial depression of wages which results in unfair competition within E.F.T.A.?

Mr. Jay: The arrangements in Portugal are not my responsibility; but the faster industry develops in Portugal, the faster will wages rise.

Imports from Portugal (Doubled Yarns and Finished Items)

Mr. Arthur Davidson: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the estimated figure of imports from Portugal of doubled yarns and finished items he expects in 1967.

Mr. Jay: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) on 15th March.—[Vol. 743 c. 574–5.]

Mr. Davidson: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that any increase in imports from Portugal of these particular categories would have a disproportionately disastrous effect in Lancashire? Would he bargain even harder than he has done to ensure that this does not happen?

Mr. Jay: I paid special attention to these particular categories of imports in my discussions with Portuguese Ministers as long ago as last October.

Mr. Mapp: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, despite what was said a moment or two ago, there is quite clear and emphatic evidence of a two-pricing system for goods sent from Portugal to

countries in E.F.T.A.? If he does not have that evidence, I shall be glad to send it to him this evening to make sure that he does have it.

Mr. Jay: I shall be very grateful to receive it. But if my hon. Friend has anti-dumping in mind, one has to prove, not merely the conditions about price, but also material injury to the industry at home.

Mr. McMaster: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Portugal many children are employed in these industries and that the wage rates are among the lowest in the world?

Mr. Robert Howarth: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind the need to phase the level of imports so that there is not bunching at particular times of the year, which has a serious effect on one particular section of the industry?

Mr. Jay: Yes. That was also taken into account in my discussions with the Portuguese Minister concerned.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: If the right hon. Gentleman cannot give any further details of the agreement, would he undertake to report on its working—if he is still here so to report—at regular intervals, because we must know how the expectations which he has held out to us all are going?

Mr. Jay: I will certainly give all the information which I can to the hon. Gentleman so long as he is here in the House.

Cinematograph Films (Exhibition)

Mr. Dickens: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now make a statement on the implementation of the recommendations of the Monopolies Commission's report on the supply of films for exhibition in cinemas.

Mr. Jay: I am still in discussion with the industry. I shall make a statement as soon as possible.

Mr. Dickens: Would my right hon. Friend accept that the public should have the opportunity of seeing a much wider and less stereotyped variety of short films in cinemas than is currently being shown? Would he indicate what progress has been made since the publication of the Monopolies Commission's Report towards prising open the monopoly of the Rank


Organisation and Associated British Cinemas to secure this?

Mr. Jay: I shall bear that point in mind. I hope that progress has been made and that we can reach a decision shortly.

Protection of Depositors

Mr. Arnold Shaw: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is satisfied that the Protection of Depositors Act, 1963, is effective in its purpose of protecting depositors; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Jay: The main purpose of the Protection of Depositors Act is to enable depositors to judge for themselves the financial soundness of a company advertising for deposits by making available to them at six-monthly intervals accounts in a prescribed form. The effectiveness of the Act, therefore, largely depends on the use depositors make of this information.

Mr. Shaw: I do not know how my right hon. Friend can be so complacent in a matter of this kind. Is he satisfied that since the inception of this Act only about half a dozen successful prosecutions have taken place while at the same time there has been a tremendous growth in fraudulent enticements?

Mr. Jay: I was not being complacent. I was merely telling my hon. Friend the facts about this legislation which was passed by the Tory Government. But the provisions which I announced in the Budget debate which we are adding to the Companies Bill will include these companies as well as other limited companies.

Sir G. Nabarro: Does the right hon. Gentleman's reply mean that he proposes to introduce legislation which will cover the kind of malpractices which have been uncovered in the case of Pinnock, Davies and Central, all of which are in a very wonky position, with the threat of large sums of depositors' moneys being lost?

Mr. Jay: I agree. I think that the previous legislation, which the hon. Gentleman supported, is defective, and that is why I am introducing new legislation.

Sir K. Joseph: But will the right hon. Gentleman accept that he is not introducing new legislation addressed to this particular problem? Will he say whether

or not he is proposing to amend the Protection of Depositors Act? We on this side of the House would look with sympathy at any method which he may put forward to warn depositors, even more than they are warned now, against risks inherent in some sorts of lending, provided that it does no damage to the vast majority of firms using public savings in thoroughly cautious and prudent ways.

Mr. Jay: I will take note of what the right hon. Gentleman said. The immediate necessity is to do what we can through the Companies Bill, because that is now before the House. If we decide that it is necessary to amend the protection of depositors legislation, we shall certainly do so.

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the President of the Board of Trade, having regard to the recent losses of f17 million to depositors, what steps he is taking to strengthen appropriate statutes for prevention of malpractices; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Jay: The failures of the deposit-taking companies in question are under investigation. I will consider, in the light of the results of the investigation, whether legislation is desirable.

Sir G. Nabarro: Would it be in time for inclusion in the Companies Bill, which is at present before a Committee upstairs? Would the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether he does not agree that no malpractices as such have been revealed in these cases but rather the uncertainties arising from the companies borrowing short and lending long? It is that practice which the right hon. Gentleman should attack.

Mr. Jay: We cannot resolve everything here by legislation. I prefer not to comment on individual companies which are under investigation. I believe that what we are already doing in the Companies Bill will be of value.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those depositors who have lost part of their capital in one of these hire-purchase companies which have been mentioned now find that the loss is not allowed against Capital Gains Tax? Will he consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer to put right this very unfair anomaly?

Mr. Jay: I will certainly bring that to my right hon. Friend's notice, if it is correct.

Furniture Industry

Mr. John Hall: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the extent of the hardship caused to the furniture industry by the Government's economic measures; and what action he proposes to take to check the rise in unemployment and short-time working in the industry.

Mr. Jay: My right hon. Friend the Minister of State has discussed the situation with a deputation from the industry, but we cannot yet relax the hire-purchase restrictions on furniture.

Mr. Hall: Does the Minister not agree that this is a very disappointing reply? Is he not aware that the furniture industry, particularly in my constituency, is going through a very difficult time and that several firms are faced with the possibility of having to suspend business? Will he, therefore, look at the matter again to see whether he can prevent the increase in hardship in the industry?

Mr. Jay: I note what the hon. Member said. The purpose of these restrictions was to restrain the general level of demand for balance-of-payments reasons, but nobody would wish to maintain them longer than necessary.

Anglo-Soviet Trade

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the adverse balance of Anglo-Soviet trade during 1967 to date; and what steps he is taking to increase exports of British manufacturers to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Mr. Jay: In the first three months of the year provisional figures for Anglo-Soviet trade were:


U.K. Imports
…
£21·5 million c.i.f.


U.K. Exports
…
£12·4 million f.o.b.


I am discussing Anglo-Soviet trade, including opportunities for increased exports of British manufacturers, with the Soviet Minister of Foreign Trade during his present visit. A communiqué will be issued shortly.

Sir G. Nabarro: Is it not a fact that the figures announced by the President of the Board of Trade reveal an adverse balance on Anglo-Soviet trade to the extent of £36 million a year, based on the first quarter of this year? As this is an endemic adverse balance which has persisted for years, can we arrange with the Soviet Union that we shall not purchase on the scale of the last few years unless they demonstrate a measure of reciprocity towards British manufactured goods?

Mr. Jay: This point has been made very often and very forcibly to our Soviet friends. I would advise the hon. Member that those figures somewhat exaggerate the gap, although the gap is still larger than we wish. I am glad to say that the Soviet authorities have placed some very large orders here during the last few months.

Sir C. Osborne: When discussing the problem with the visiting Soviet Trade Minister, will the right hon. Gentleman try to undo the old regulation which limited the proportion of purchases of consumer goods to too small a proportion? Will he see that consumer goods are bought in greater amount, because that produces more employment in this country?

Mr. Jay: I always thought that the arrangement made here by the previous Government was mistaken and I am glad to say that it is becoming obsolescent.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Biggs-Davison—Question No. 47.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order. Have we overlooked Question No. 46?

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry. It was grouped with No. 21, and the hon. Member for Richmond, Surrey (Mr. A. Royle), who had down Question No. 21, was not here. Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop—Question No. 46.

BAC211 Aircraft

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has yet reached a decision on the proposal made to him by British European Airways for the purchase of a number of BAC211s.

Mr. A. Royle: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has reached a decision on British European Airway's application to order BAC211 aircraft.

Mr. Jay: As I informed the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) on 15th March, I am examining the complex issues raised by B.E.A.'s proposal. They are naturally related to the consideration which the Government, together with the Government of France and Germany, are giving to the possibility of a joint Anglo-French-German airbus project. We are conscious of the need of the airline and the manufacturers for as early a decision as possible. When it is reached I will, as I have promised, make a statement to the House.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will the right hon. Gentleman please avoid two pitfalls—sponsoring an aircraft with no further substantial export sales or delaying a positive decision on the airbus until part of the market has already gone to America?

Mr. Jay: There are more than two pitfalls in this matter and I am trying to avoid them all.

Mr. Robert Howarth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the estimated development cost of the BAC211 is roughly £100 million and the estimated cost of the Trident III is about £17 million? Does not this mean that this is a more obvious choice for B.E.A. than the aircraft that they have been requesting?

Mr. Jay: I would not endorse my hon. Friend's exact figures. But though cost is one of the more important factors, it is by no means the only factor involved in this choice.

Mr. Lubbock: Will the right hon. Gentleman give some approximate figures of the development cost of the BAC211? What assessment has been made of the export prospects? Will he not agree that, however much it costs, it would be more worthwhile for this country to go ahead with our friends in Europe in developing an airbus than for us to waste our money in developing an aircraft which will have no sales abroad?

Mr. Jay: I do not think that we should disregard cost altogether. We have sometimes gone too far towards that in the past. These problems of likely costs and

possible export markets are being examined now with great care, and I do not think that we should be too hasty in coming to a decision.

Mr. R. Carr: Will the President of the Board of Trade avoid the biggest pitfall of all in this country, which is to delay a decision and positive action so long that B.E.A. can neither remain profitable nor maintain its proper volume of a growing market?

Mr. Jay: I am aware of that, too, but B.E.A. has placed an order for 18 of the existing latest BAC111 with an option for six more, and it is not a matter which is urgent in a matter of days.

International Food Aid Programme

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the President of the Board of Trade what discussions the Government have had with other Governments, particularly those concerned with the Kennedy Round of trade negotiations, about an international food aid programme; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Jay: During the negotiations for a cereals agreement in the context of the Kennedy Round, a proposal was put forward that the participants should contribute to an international food aid programme as part of the agreement. The negotiations, which are confidential, are continuing.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Can the right hon. Gentleman give some idea of what this will cost this country? Can he also say what were the views of other European countries on this proposal?

Mr. Jay: Naturally a proposal of this kind is favoured by the exporters rather than by the importers. The cost involved for this country would not be large because we are very conscious of the effect on our balance of payments.

Patent Office

Mr. Hunt: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in the light of representations from patent agents and the difficulties of finding a suitable site outside central London, he will not reconsider his decision to move the Patent Office out of London.

Mr. Darling: No, Sir.

Mr. Hunt: Why are the Government being so obstinate about this? Does not the Minister realise that an overwhelming weight of professional opinion is in favour of the Patent Office staying in Central London? In view of the very special difficulty which a move out of London would create for an office which has to receive 10,000 documents by hand every week, will he not have another look at this matter in the interests both of commerce and of common sense?

Mr. Darling: We have looked at all the arguments which the hon. Member has put forward. There will have to be a new Patent Office within the next few years. The present office is in a shocking state of inadequacy. We think that this is a very good opportunity to relieve congestion in the centre of London, as long as the new building is within reasonable travelling distance of the centre of London. I think that some of the claims which are being made about disadvantages are greatly exaggerated.

Mr. Corfield: Is it not becoming abundantly clear that this office can serve the public which it is designed to serve only by being very close to the centre of things in London?

Mr. Darling: We do not accept that view at all.

Vacant Factory, Uddington

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many inquiries he has received from industrialists with a view to taking over the factory vacated by Saltanes at Uddington; what he has done to publicise this factory; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Darling: Steps will be taken shortly to publicise the availability of this factory. In the meantime, preliminary inquiries have been made by two firms.

Mr. Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we have redundancies and closures in Lanarkshire? Is he not prepared to agree that, bearing in mind the fact that the Mint is going to Wales and that there is a high percentage of unemployment in Lanarkshire, some facet of Government administration could easily come to this factory?

Mr. Darling: I. think that there are opportunities for expansion here and we will see what we can do to make sure that this factory is taken by a tenant as quickly as possible and that other developments go on there.

Mozambique (Hydro-Electric and Irrigation Scheme)

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to assist British firms to obtain orders in connection with the CahoraBassa hydro-electric and irrigation scheme on the Zambesi in Mozambique.

Mr. Darling: I understand that the Portuguese authorities have not yet decided whether to go ahead with this project. The full range of services of the Board of Trade is, of course, available to British firms interested in this scheme, as it is to all British firms negotiating export contracts.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is it not true that the World Bank is willing to participate in this scheme, and if it goes through will it not provide immense opportunities for British exporters? Will the Government allow no ideological considerations to stand in the way of promoting British trade?

Mr. Darling: I understand that a British group which is interested in the scheme has been in touch with the Board of Trade and the Export Credits Guarantee Department, and, on the last point that the hon. Gentleman made, the Foreign Office too. I hope that if this scheme goes ahead it will be a British company which gets the contract.

Companies (Liquidations and Bankruptcies)

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many companies were placed in the hands of the Official Receiver and non-official liquidators and of these, what was the total wound up or declared bankrupt in the quarter ending 31st March, 1967; and how this figure compares with the previous three quarters and the same quarter, last year.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the number of companies in the hands of the


Official Receiver and non-official liquidator at 31st March, 1967; and how this figure compares with that at the end of the previous three quarters, and at the end of the same quarter last year.

Mr. Darling: With permission I will answer this Question and No. 2 for Written Answer together.
As the information requested is detailed, I am circulating it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Osborn: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the position is any better or worse this quarter than in the last quarter and the previous year?

Mr. Darling: It is difficult to say, because the figures of compulsory liquidations begun in England and Wales in recent years have been increasing rapidly ever since 1956. They go up by about 100 cases a year, and I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the trend is still continuing.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Does the information which my right hon. Friend is to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT break up the figures to show which relate to England and Wales, and which to Scotland?

Mr. Darling: There are separate figures for Scotland, and in fact different Scottish law, which creates difficulties in giving the kind of figures which my hon. and learned Friend wants.

Following is the information:
The number of winding-up orders made in England and Wales in the quarter ended 31st March, 1967, was 329. In 96 cases non-official liquidators were appointed by the court; in 150 cases Official Receivers remained liquidators; in the remaining 83 cases the results of the meeting of creditors are not yet known.

The figures for 1966 are as follows:—


Quarter
Winding-up Orders
Official Receivers
Non-official Liquidators


First quarter
241
150
91


Second quarter
218
147
71


Third quarter
127
86
41


Fourth quarter
348
237
111


The number of compulsory liquidations in the hands of Official Receivers and non-official liquidators at 31st March, 1967 was 3,705; Official Receivers are liquidators in 2,104 cases and non-official liquidators in 1,518 cases; in 83 cases the results of the meetings of creditors are not yet known.

The figures for 1966 are as follows:—



Total
Official Receivers
Non-official Liquidators


At 31st March, 1966
3,298
1,914
1,384


At 30th June, 1966
3,357
1,922
1,435


At 30th Sept., 1966
3,353
1,871
1,482


At 31st Dec., 1966
3,534
2,027
1,507

Advance Factory, Fraserburgh

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: asked the President of the Board of Trade why the time between the original application for tenancy of the advance factory in Fraser-burgh and its final handing over to the company concerned was so lengthy.

Mr. Darling: The factory was handed over to the tenant as soon as it had been completed to their particular requirements.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is much concern and feeling locally at the delay, and also that this factory has still not gone into production 15 months after the original application? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his Department seems to think the company was responsible in some way since February, whereas the company claims that it was not until December of last year that it finally got the factory? Will the Minister maximise his efficiency in handling this?

Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman has got his facts wrong. The firm submitted its application on 1st February, 1966. The allocation was made to it on 15th March, 1966, and the work of completing the factory to the company's requirements was finished on 30th June, 1966. It is true that since then the company has run into trading difficulties which have prevented the factory from going ahead as we would have wished, but we hope that those trading difficulties will soon be overcome.

Egg Marketing Board (Anti-dumping Duty Applications)

Mr. Dance: asked the President of the Board of Trade what action has been taken on the application made by the Egg Marketing Board in March for the imposition of an anti-dumping duty under the


Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act, 1957.

Mr. Godber: asked the President of the Board of Trade what reply he has sent to the request of the Egg Marketing Board to ban the import of Polish eggs under the anti-dumping legislation.

Mr. Jay: On 13th April, the Egg Marketing Board requested action pending an application. It was told that antidumping action could not be taken unless and until evidence was provided to satisfy the Board of Trade that dumped imports were causing or threatening material injury to the British producers. I received an application from the Egg Marketing Board yesterday which is being examined.

Mr. Dance: I am grateful that the right hon. Gentleman is examining this, but is he aware that putting in these applications is a complicated business and takes a tremendous amount of time? Will he please try to remedy this and make it more simple, and take action to see that the dumping of Polish eggs does not go on, as this badly affects our home producers?

Mr. Jay: It is as simple as possible under the present law, but by our antidumping legislation we are bound to lay down certain conditions.

Mr. Godber: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are real difficulties here, and that in fact relatively small imports can do a great deal of harm? Will he deal with the matter urgently, because not only does it affect the Egg Board and also the producer, but also indirectly the Treasury?

Mr. Jay: Now that we have the applications we shall certainly deal with them as speedily as we can.

Exports to Ghana (Credit)

Mr. Tilney: asked the President of the Board of Trade what credit has been advanced on British exports to Ghana since 24th February, 1966, when the present Ghana Government came to power.

Mr. Jay: Cover has been available throughout from the Export Credits Guarantee Department for exports of British goods on short-term credit of up to six months. Longer terms are avail-

able for equipment needed to maintain installed machinery and plant of British origin.

Mr. Tilney: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that Britain, by helping Ghana through the E.C.G.D. to import essential goods, has done more than most countries to aid the comparatively new Government of Ghana whom we are glad to see have survived the recently attempted coup and whom we would all like to help overcome the difficulties bequeathed to them by Dr. Nkruma?

Mr. Jay: That is true, and since February, 1966, about £26 million worth of British exports have been shipped to Ghana under E.C.G.D. cover.

Naphthalene (Exports)

Mr. Brian Parkyn: asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the free-on-board value and tonnage of naphthalene exported during the last six months for which figures are available; and what were the corresponding figures for the previous six months.

Mr. Darling: In the six months ended February, 1967, 5,857 tons valued at £171,012 and in the previous six months 2,021 tons valued at £55,401.

Phthalic Anhydride (Imports)

Mr. Brian Parkyn: asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the carriage, insurance and freight value and tonnage of phthalic anhydride imported during the last six months for which figures are available; and what were the corresponding figures for the previous six months.

Mr. Darling: I regret I cannot give this information. To do so would disclose the business of individual traders.

Mr. Parkyn: In view of the fact that most of the phthalic anhydride manufactured in this country is still made from naphthalene, and that there are periodic world wide shortages of phthalic anhydride which many people believe are artificially contrived, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is satisfied that there is sufficient control over the export of this material?

Mr. Darling: With regard to the export of naphthalene, what has


happened is that British manufacturers are now getting a higher price overseas than was formerly the case, and I understand also that the production problems are being discussed with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power as this is a problem which comes within his jurisdiction.

Aberdeen

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has for further developing Aberdeen trade, industry and commerce with particular reference to the provision of more advance factories, intercontinental trade with Scandinavia, Northern Europe and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the stoppage of the drift south from Aberdeen of skilled craftsmen and women.

Mr. Jay: I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave my hon. and learned Friend on Wednesday, 19th April, about the construction of advance factories in Aberdeen. The Board's officials in Scotland, as well as commercial officers from overseas, have regularly been in touch with firms in the Aberdeen area to help and encourage exports.—[Vol. 745, c. 97.]

Mr. Hector Hughes: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his successful efforts to increase trade, industry, and commerce in Aberdeen, may I add that his reactions to my efforts, contrary to the suggestions made in earlier supplementary questions here today, have always been prompt and accurate?

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many applications he has had from industrialists during the last year for advance factories and other accommodation and facilities to bring industries to Aberdeen.

Mr. Darling: In the 12 months to 31st March, 1967, the Board of Trade received one application for an advance factory in Aberdeen and 64 applications for financial assistance under the Local Employment Acts for development of projects in Aberdeen.

Mr. Hughes: Aberdeen appreciates very much—[Interruption.]—the efforts that my right hon. Friend has made—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Member must ask a question.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that the efforts that he has made will prove of great assistance to industry and commerce in Aberden and are much appreciated by the people of Aberdeen?

Mr. Darling: I am well aware that our efforts in Aberdeen are appreciated. I hope that we can do as well for other parts of Scotland.

MONOPOLIES COMMISSION (HOUSEHOLD DETERGENTS)

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Douglas Jay): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall now answer Questions Nos. 17, 49, 74 and 78.
I am now able to inform the House of the outcome of my discussions with Unilever and Proctor & Gamble about the Report of the Monopolies Commission on the Supply of Household Detergents.
The companies have undertaken to make fully available an alternative range of top-quality soap powders and synthetic detergent powders at a price 20 per cent. below the prices of existing products in these categories. The consumer will thus be able to choose freely between these cheaper products, the prices of which will reflect less expenditure on advertising and promotion, and the higher priced and more intensively advertised products.
The companies have also undertaken not to raise the prices of any of the detergents covered by the Commission's Report for a further two years.
My examination of this problem has led me to conclude that we know too little about the economic effects of advertising in general and its relationship to competition. Accordingly, I have decided to institute some independent research into this subject, and will be consulting industry about its scope. This research will be general and not confined to detergents.
To help the consumer, I also propose to start immediate consultations with a view to the institution under the Weights and Measures Act of standardised packaging for a range of detergent products.
I believe that these measures will materially benefit consumers. I shall,


however, keep the position under regular scrutiny and shall formally review it at the end of two years.

Mr. Ridley: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that there is nothing in the Monopolies and Mergers Act which gives him power to carry out these negotiations, and that he has acted with grave constitutional impropriety? Will he now say whether he intends to continue his policy of government by Ministerial decree, or will pass laws to justify what he has been trying to do?

Mr. Jay: I am not sure what charge the hon. Gentleman is bringing against me, but it did not sound at all convincing to me. I have not introduced any decree or order, or anything else. I am glad that we have secured great benefit to the consumer and have reached agreement with the firms concerned.

Mr. Winnick: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his excellent measures and recommendations? Is he aware that the feeling seems to exist that Unilever wanted to be above the law in this matter, and also that the Monopolies Commission recommended that there was an excellent case for a 40 per cent. reduction in price of many of these soap products?

Mr. Jay: The agreement which we have reached is reasonable. Nobody—neither these firms nor anyone else—is above the law.

Sir J. Eden: When the right hon. Gentleman says that he does not know anything about the economic effects of advertising in general, does not he agree that the best people to judge when advertising expenditure has become excessive are the people who pay for it?

Mr. Jay: I did not say that we knew nothing about it; I said that I thought that we knew too little. There has been surprisingly little systematic inquiry into the economics of this matter, and I think that it is worth doing. It will help the consumer and the producer, as well as others.

Mr. Dickens: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his radical statement this afternoon of follow-up action on the Monopolies Commission Report will be warmly welcomed on this side of the

House and throughout the country? Is he further aware that it will provide further evidence of the fact that the Government intend rigorously to follow through these reports as they become available.

Mr. Jay: I think that I can wholly agree with that.

Mr. Peyton: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that the admission which he has just charmingly made that the Government know too little about this subject has not prevented them from intervening in this field in the past? Can he give the House an assurance that the investigation that he is now undertaking will be genuinely independent, and will be carried out by people without prejudice?

Mr. Jay: We have acted cautiously in the past. This investigation may enable us in the future to intervene more boldly, but entirely without prejudice.

Mr. Milne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this latest excursion into the field of consumer protection will give tremendous satisfaction on both sides of the counter and to everybody throughout the country? Will he undertake, as speedily as possible, to have an inquiry into advertising, which, as he has already said, is long overdue?

Mr. Jay: Yes. It is clear from the interventions of the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) and other hon. Members opposite that the consumer is not among the friends of those who sit on the other side of the House.

Mr. Hirst: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to researches on advertising, and help to consumers and advertisers. Are we to understand that he has in mind not a Departmental Committee, to which evidence is called for or given, but a thoroughly representative type of investigation by people concerned in all these fields?

Mr. Jay: We have not decided on the final form, but we propose to consult representative industrial organisations about it.

Sir K. Joseph: The right hon. Gentleman has made a most important statement, and I want to ask him four questions.
First, would he tell us whether there is any difference between the standard products which he says these two companies will put on the market and the equivalent products which they are at present selling? Will he accept that hon. Members on this side of the House will he very interested to see how the public divides its favours between these two differently priced products?
Secondly, will he tell us whether he and the Government accept that good marketing is vital to cheap and good quality service to the consumer?
Thirdly, will he confirm—I hope that he is making a note of my questions—that his Department has sponsored the visit of a number of businessmen to go on a marketing course at Harvard University? How do the Government think that the Prime Minister's boast that we can beat hell out of the Americans can be made to come true if we send businessmen to America on courses and then tie their hands on their return?
Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the market is working, as is shown by the fact that several new detergents have been put on the market —or at least have been planned—by Tesco, Sainsbury, Jays and Aspro-Nicholas since the Monopolies Commission Report?

Mr. Jay: I think that the right hon. Gentleman failed to take a note of my statement. Of course we believe in good marketing. That is why we have supported these courses at Harvard, but good marketing is not necessarily the same as expensive marketing. The new products to be made available at these lower prices will include some existing and some new products. A wide range will be available to the consumer.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: Will this independent investigation into advertising cover a whole range of products, or merely be confined to soap?

Mr. Jay: I have already said that it will not be confined to detergents.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while any measures which will reduce the cost of these products to the consumer are welcome, it is already possible to buy in bulk products such as Hederol and Lissapol, which are the equivalent of those sold

under proprietary names at far higher prices? Will he draw the attention of the investigation particularly to the revolting and emetic television advertisement for a substance called "Fairy Liquid", which employs small children, contrary to the spirit of the Government's own legislation?

Mr. Jay: I do not think that that would be outside the terms of reference, but I do not want to start advertising individual products here today.

Mr. Kitson: On a point of order. Is it not a great discourtesy to the House that the statement which has just been made by the President of the Board of Trade should have been published in full in the Evening Standard two hours ago?

Mr. Speaker: It may be a point of argument between the two sides of the House, but it is not a matter for Mr. Speaker.

NORTH VIETNAM (s.s. "DARTFORD")

Mr. Dickens: Mr. Dickens (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the damage and casualties suffered by the British ship, s.s. "Dartford", as a result of United States bombing of Haiphong harbour yesterday.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. George Brown): I am aware of Press reports, all apparently relying on North Vietnamese sources, that s.s. "Dartford", which flies the British flag, is registered and owned in Hong Kong, and is currently being operated on charter to Chinese interests, has been struck by bullets in Haiphong harbour.
Her Majesty's Consul-General in Hanoi has sought an interview with the authorities there to determine the precise extent of damage and casualties, and to seek their permission to interview the master in order that he can offer all the assistance that lies within his power.

Mr. Dickens: Given the fact that the news agency reports from Tokyo are correct, will the Foreign Secretary agree that this seems to be the latest in a steady development of escalation in this war in Vietnam? Will he not make the strongest


representations in Washington against this latest outrage?

Mr. Brown: I do not see how one can take any reports so far received, which, I repeat, all appear to be based on North Vietnamese sources, as necessarily correct. What I have told my hon. Friend is that the moment we heard about it I asked the Consul-General to go in and find out what had happened and give the master of the ship all the help he could.
I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand that Her Majesty's Consul-General cannot even go to see the ship or the master unless Hanoi gives him permission to do so.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that on 8th December I asked his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade whether he had any information about foreign firms using the British flag as a flag of convenience for trading, with ships registered in Hong Kong and with foreign crews, with North Vietnamese or North Korean crews, between Communist ports and North Vietnam? Will he inquire whether this was such a ship, because, if so, that would seem to be an abuse of the British flag?

Mr. Brown: With all the attention which I normally give to what the hon. Gentleman says and does, I did not know that he had done that. I will inquire into it.

Lord Balniel: When the right hon. Gentleman has some reliable information on this subject, will he be so kind as to report back to the House?

Mr. Brown: If the House so pleases, of course. One of the interesting things is that it is only a week or so since a British ship was mined, holed and almost sunk in Saigon Harbour by a mine placed there by North Vietnam. I am interested that nobody in the House asked me a question about that.

Mr. Paget: Will my right hon. Friend consider whether it is possible to prevent the British flag from being used in circumstances of this sort and for purposes of this sort, as that is very apt to involve a lot of other people in great danger in

trying to rescue those who are no business of ours?

Mr. Brown: That is a much wider question, involving other considerations. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and I will think about it, but it raises many other questions.

Mr. Orme: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that this latest escalation into Haiphong and Hanoi is reflected by the great concern in the serious British Press this morning? Will he reiterate the statement by the Prime Minister last year condemning such attacks on the population centres of Hanoi and Haiphong?

Mr. Brown: I do not like this happening at all—and that is the understatement of the afternoon. But I repeat what I just said: when it happens in Haiphong, it is regarded by some of my hon. Friends as an escalation; when it happens in Saigon Harbour, it passes unnoticed. I think that we will have much more impact on events if we distribute our condemnation a bit more equally.

Mr. Lubbock: Does not the Foreign Secretary realise that whether or not a British ship was involved the bombardment of Hanoi and Haiphong, coupled with the escalation in the U.S. bombing attacks on Mig bases in North Vietnam, can lead only to the result that ultimately Communist China will be drawn into this confrontation with global results? Will he, therefore, make the strongest representations to the United States Government against—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Lubbock: —such attacks?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am trying to protect the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock). Hon. Members must listen to opinions which they do not like.

Mr. Brown: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's opinions and those of my hon. Friends. I do not share them in so far as they believe that we will avoid the dangers by appearing, or acting, or speaking in a partisan way. So long as this war goes on, the dangers of escalation will be enormous, and the consequences are terrifying. That is why I am doing


what little I can do to try to stop the war. What I am saying is that I do not think that we will influence events by choosing one side on whom to visit our condemnation and seeming to put up with what the other side does.

Mr. Whitaker: Did the United States Government give Her Majesty's Government any warning that they would bomb Haiphong Harbour, in view of the possible danger to international shipping?

Mr. Brown: I had many discussions when I was in Washington last week about many subjects, but I do not think that I would want to be drawn on that one.

BILL PRESENTED

FISHING VESSEL GRANTS

Bill to repeal the statutory limits on the amount that may be paid by way of any grant in pursuance of a scheme under section 1 or 6 of the White Fish and Herring Industries Act, 1953, in respect of expenditure consisting of payments made on or after 1st January 1967, presented by Mr. Fred Peart; supported by Mr. William Ross, Mr. Cledwyn Hughes, Mr. Niall MacDermot, and Mr. James Hoy; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 242.]

CRIMINAL JUSTICE [MONEY] (No. 3)

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to the proceedings of criminal courts, it is expedient to authorize—

(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of sums required by the Treasury for making payments of compensation to holders of rights granted by the Crown and extinguished by that Act to fines or sums due under forfeited recognisances;
(b) the payment into the Exchequer of sums which apart from the extinguishment of those rights would have been paid to the holders thereof.—Mr. Roy Jenkins.]

Orders of the Day — CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause No. 1.—(SIGNATURE OF DEPOSITIONS.)

An examining justice who signs a certificate authenticating one or more depositions or statements tendered under section 2 of this Act shall be treated for the purposes of section 13(3)(c) of the Criminal Justice Act 1925 (requirement that depositions read at the trial must have been signed by an examining justice) as signing that deposition or statement or each of those depositions and statements.—[Mr. Taverne.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.50 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Dick Taverne): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that with this new Clause we shall also discuss Amendment No. 12, in page 5, line 27, to leave out Clause 6.

Mr. Taverne: The purpose of the new Clause is to give better effect to the original Clause 6. It is concerned with the authentication of depositions and written statements when they are allowed to be read as evidence at a trial on indictment. The way in which depositions are dealt with on committal proceedings and transmitted to the court of trial is regulated by Magistrates' Courts' Rules, which provide a form (known as the jurat), which is attached to the depositions and signed by the examining justice, who thereby certifies that he has taken the depositions of the several deponents and thus does not have to sign each deposition, let alone each page, which could take a considerable time.
Under Section 13(3,c) of the Criminal Justice Act, 1925, depositions may in certain circumstances be read at the trial, in place of the oral evidence of the deponent, but only if signed by an examining justice. It is clearly right that there should be a uniform method of authenticating the proper taking of depositions and because there has been some uncertainty about what could happen in cases under the 1925 Act, Clause 6 was inserted in the Bill.
However, there were representations by the justices' clerks that the original Clause did not quite achieve this object, because it referred to the signing of the last of several depositions, which might not cover the signing of a separate certificate—the jurat—covering all the depositions. The new Clause is designed to make this clear.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

New Clause No. 2—(SUBSTITUTION OF CONDITIONAL DISCHARGE FOR PROBATION.)

(1) Where on an application made by the probationer or the probation officer it appears to the court having power to discharge a probation order made under section 3 of the Criminal Justice Act 1948 that the order is no longer appropriate in the case of the probationer, the court may make, in substitution for the probation order, an order discharging him in respect of the original offence, subject to the condition that he commits no offence between the making of the order under this section and the expiration of the probation period.

(2) A person in respect of whom an order is made under this section shall so long as the said condition continues in force be treated in all respects and in particular for the purposes of section 8 of the said Act of 1948 (commission of further offence by probationer or person subject to order for conditional discharge) as if the original order made in his case had been an order for conditional discharge made under section 7 of that Act by the court which made the original order and as if the period of conditional discharge were the same as the probation period.

(3) On the making of an order under this section the clerk of the court shall forthwith give copies thereof to the probation officer, who shall give a copy to the person in respect of whom the order is made and to the person in charge of any institution in which that person was required by the probation order to reside.—[Miss Bacon.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Alice Bacon): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
In Committee, a similar Clause to this was moved by the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) and the Government undertook to do something about this matter later. This Clause is the result. It will enable a probation order to be converted into an order for conditional discharge. The effect of such a conversion would be to

relieve the probation officer and the probationer of the obligations of supervision, while leaving the probationer liable to be dealt with for the original offence if he committed another within the period of the order.
The power to convert could be useful where a probation officer was not able to establish a satisfactory relationship with the probationer—for example, because the latter moved home too often. In such cases, the continuation of the probation order might be of little use, but the court might be reluctant to discharge the order completely.
The only difference between this Clause and that of the right hon. and learned Member is in relation to the court which would discharge the probation order. In this clause, it will be the supervising court and not the original court.

Sir David Renton: rose—

Mr. Quintin Hogg (St. Marylebone): rose—

Sir D. Renton: I thank the right hon. Lady for meeting this point. I believe that the Government have done it in the right way. I am sure that it is right that the supervising court should be the one to discharge the order. The Clause should give some satisfaction to the probation service, as it will marginally reduce their work and will mean that, when there is no point in probation continuing, a probation officer will no longer have a responsibility. I think that this is splendid.

Mr. Hogg: I do not wish to detain the House further. I rose only because I had not seen my right hon. and learned Friend in the Chamber and I wished to thank the right hon. Lady.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

New Clause No. 3.—(SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF BAIL.)

(1) The conditions on which bail is granted to any person may include conditions appearing to the court to be likely to result in his appearance at the time and place required or to be necessary in the interests of justice or for the prevention of crime.

(2) A court which on granting bail to any person imposes a condition under the foregoing


subsection shall not require him to find sureties in respect of that condition.—[Mr. Taverne.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Taverne: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that we are to discuss with this new Clause Amendment No. 8, to Clause 3, in page 3, line 35, to leave out 'any of'.

Mr. Taverne: This new Clause would replace subsection (6) of Clause 12 which was added to the Bill after an Amendment moved by hon. Members opposite and inspired by one of the working parties of "Justice". Our debates in Committee convinced us that the adding of conditions or the power to impose conditions to bail would be valuable as it might reduce the number of people who were refused bail. It is hoped that the courts will keep in mind that the purpose of the provision is to save some people from being kept in prison and not to burden those who will in any event be given bail by the adding of conditions. There should be no question of imposing special conditions as a matter of course.
The new facility should be used in cases in which, without conditions, a person would have to go to prison, but in which the imposing of conditions might be a sufficient safeguard to make custody unnecessary. It is also important to bear in mind that these conditions will, to some extent, have to be policed. It will, of course, be difficult for the police to supervise all these conditions in every case and the choice of conditions will, I hope, be made by the court with the consideration that there will be an extra burden on the police.
The Clause does not specify any conditions. Nor did it seem to add substantially to its effect to give a number of examples, as the original subsection did. It would be difficult to specify in advance every kind of condition which might be thought useful and one would want to avoid argument as to whether certain conditions came within the Clause or not. The conditions ought to be forms of restriction which would make it more difficult for the accused to engage in undesirable conduct like interfering with prosecution witnesses and ensure that he turned up at the trial at the end of the remand period.
For that reason, subsection (1) provides that the court may impose any condition which appears likely to conduce to the defendant's subsequent appearance and to the prevention of crime and interference with the ends of justice. These are, shortly, the common law criteria on which the courts should found their bail determinations. The sanction against breach of conditions consists in the police powers which are the subject of another new Clause which I shall move shortly.

Mr. Percy Grieve: I thank the Government for having implemented the undertaking which they gave in Committee, and welcome the new Clause. As the hon. and learned Gentleman said, the Amendments in Committee were inspired by the sub-committee of "Justice" which carefully considered this matter and reported in a sense which was extremely useful to the Committee and which will, I believe, result in the courts' finding it much more easy to grant bail.

Mr. Reginald Paget: Although I am in entire agreement with the purpose of the Clause, I am a little anxious about its form. The Under-Secretary said that this provision is not to be used as common form, but only in cases where the court could not otherwise grant bail. But there is nothing in the Clause to say this. The courts do not know what has been said here or the undertakings which have been given and, indeed, could not consider them. Why cannot something be written into the Clause to the effect that conditions on which bail is granted should be imposed in cases in which bail could not otherwise be granted? Then the courts would know the Government's intentions.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Hogg: I have great sympathy with the point of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). It would be churlish if I did not thank the Under-Secretary for the new Clause, which he promised in Committee in reply to suggestions from both sides; he has discharged his promise honourably and, I think, improved the Bill by doing so.
At the same time—I hope that the Home Secretary may consider this even while the Bill is passing through another place—as I said in Committee, the trouble with Clause 12 and this Clause, which


are really parts of the same complex now, is that they are much too complicated. In my opinion, which is widely shared in the House, the only real reasons for refusing bail which commonly arise are the danger of absconding before the trial, the chance of interfering with witnesses before the trial and the prevention of the commission of another offence by the same offender. As the hon. and learned Gentleman said in criticism of the new Clause, this will not be found in it or in Clause 12 or anywhere else, except in the Magna Carta, which nobody reads nowadays.
If the Under-Secretary would reconsider this complex and put in something positive, either in Clause 12 or some other appropriate place in these provisions—which are purely negative, because they allow for reasons why bail should not be refused—it would be very much simpler and make for better draftsmanship and a much better Clause.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: The Clause meets the anxieties which many of us expressed in Committee, when it was said that, under the language of the Bill, the two primary reasons for refusing bail—the risks of the accused jumping bail and of his interfering with witnesses—were not spelled out as grounds. Objection was taken to that with some force. The view was expressed, with good reason, that the Bill's language diverted magistrates' attention from what should be the primary factors in reaching their conclusion.
However, that objection is overcome—the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) conceded this —because these matters are now expressly referred to in the Clause, so that they take the form of conditions which may be attached to the grant of bail. The main danger which existed is thus overcome.
Considering the merit of dealing with these matters as conditions of bail, the House should consider the Clause again, I think, between this new Clause and the other which is shortly to follow. It is welcome that the introduction of this concept in the form of conditions for the grant of bail should be closely related —as they are in what is proposed—to measures which can be taken to ensure

that the conditions are not, with impunity, disregarded.

Mr. Taverne: I am not sure that I fully understood the difficulty that is felt by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), who wondered whether conditions should be imposed in cases where bail could not be given. The difficulty that might arise is in connection with the fact that conditions should be imposed in cases where bail is bound to be given under Clause 12. I understand that to be the point about which my hon. and learned Friend is anxious. I assure him that the Government have carefully considered this matter. Having considered the criticism that has been made of the earlier parts of Clause 12, it was felt that it would be too restrictive if the conditions were confined to those cases which did not arise under the rest of the Clause.
The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) asked for a positive statement to be made somewhere in the Clause about the existing common law on bail. I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the common law remains and that nothing in the Clause alters it—except in respect of certain conditions stated in the Clause about bail having to be given and apart from the new subsection which has been added.
Had we at some stage inserted the common law in a statutory fashion in the provision, the effect might have been too restrictive, particularly if certain of the reasons for refusing bail had been linked to the existing common law. I suggest that, with the common law surviving as it does, the Clause will have the effect of bail no longer being refused to be given in many cases where bail can safely be given.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

New Clause No. 4.—(ARREST OF PERSONS GRANTED BAIL.)

(1) A constable may arrest without warrant any person who has been granted bail—

(a) if the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that that person is likely to break the condition that he will appear at the time and place required or any other condition on which bail was granted, or has reasonable cause to suspect that that person


is breaking or has broken any such other condition; or
(b) on being notified in writing by any surety for that person that the surety believes that that person is likely to break the first-mentioned condition and for that reason the surety wishes to be relieved of his obligations as a surety.

(2) A person arrested under the foregoing subsection—

(a) shall, except where he was so arrested within the period of twelty-four hours immediately preceding an occasion on which he is required by virtue of a condition of his bail to appear before any court, be brought as soon as practicable and in any event within twenty-four hours after his arrest before a justice of the peace acting for the petty sessions area in which he was arrested; and
(b) in the said excepted case shall be brought before the court before which he is required to appear as aforesaid.

(3) A justice of the peace before whom a person is brought under the last foregoing subsection may, if of the opinion that that person has broken or is likely to break any condition on which bail was granted, remand him in custody or commit him to custody, as the case may require, or alternatively release him on his original recognizance or on a new recognizance with or without sureties, and if not of that opinion shall release him on his original recognizance.—[Mr. Taverne.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Taverne: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This new Clause gives effect to another undertaking arising out of an Amendment moved by hon. Gentlemen opposite. Perhaps I should have said when moving the last new Clause that we are grateful to hon. Gentlemen opposite, and to some of my hon. Friends, for having moved Amendments—and we are equally grateful to the committee of "Justice", which has done an extremely good job—because the efforts of all concerned have materially improved the Bill.
The Clause is concerned to give the police power to arrest persons on bail without warrant in certain circumstances. The present position is rather curious in that there is no power for the police, of their own motion, to rearrest a person who has been granted bail. A person on bail with sureties can be delivered by the police back into the custody of the court if the sureties are afraid that that person will break bail, and the police may in such circumstances assist the sureties.
If the accused commits an offence, such as the intimidation of witnesses, he can be dealt with for that offence, but if there

are no sureties, and no such offence has been committed, the police have no power to bring the accused back to court if he is about to abscond, let alone if they merely apprehend a breach. The Clause may, therefore, make the police much less reluctant to agree to bail in certain circumstances. Subsection (1) defines the circumstances in which a constable may arrest without warrant a person granted bail. Subsection (2) deals with the disposal of a person arrested without warrant under this power. Subsection (3) deals with the power of the justice before whom an arrested defendant is brought. The subsections are quite clear and, I hope, will have the support of the House.

Mr. Grieve: Once again, I thank the Government for having implemented an undertaking which they gave in Committee. This Clause perhaps follows very closely the recommendations of "Justice". It is designed, first to facilitate the granting of bail, and, secondly, for the protection of the public in cases where it may appear to the police that those on bail are likely to abscond or commit further offences. In that spirit, I give the Clause my entire and complete welcome.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

New Clause No. 5.—(NOTICE OF RESULT OF COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS.)

() Where a magistrates' court acting as examining justices commits any person for trial or determines to discharge him, the clerk of the court shall, on the day on which the committal proceeding are concluded or the next day, cause to be displayed in a part of the court house to which the public have access a notice—

(a) in either case giving that person's name address, and age (if known);
(b) in a case where the court so commits him, stating the charge or charges on which he is committed and the court to which he is committed;
(c) in a case where the court dismisses the charge, describing the offence charged and stating that it has dismissed the charge. —[Mr. Taverne.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Taverne: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): I suggest that it would be convenient to discuss, at the same time, the proposed Amendment to the new Clause standing in the name of the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck), at the end to insert:
(2) A notice giving the name, address and age (if known) of every person appointed to be brought up before magistrates or summoned to appear before them on information laid and of the person or persons laying the information, and stating briefly the offence or offences charged, shall be caused to be displayed by the Clerk of the Court before the hearing on the day on which it is appointed in a part of the court house to which the public have access.

Mr. Taverne: The effect of the Clause is to require a magistrates' court to post up a notice at the conclusion of committal proceedings stating their result. The courts are not normally under any obligation to announce the results of their proceedings in this manner, but there are special features about Clause 3 which seem to the Government to make it desirable to have a provision ready for this purpose. The provision is confined to committal proceedings and does not cover trials.
Earlier this year my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary met a number of representatives of the Press, who pointed out various difficulties that would arise in the day-to-day operations of the Press as a result of the Clause. It must be accepted that some newspapers will find it difficult to send reporters to record committal proceedings if they cannot publish the reports of them at once. The result may well be that there will be less coverage of the results of these proceedings.
The object of Clause 3 is to prevent the evidence at committal proceedings from being published before the trial, but it is no part of the purpose of the Government that the results of committal proceedings should not be known at once. Indeed, Clause 3 (4) permits the facts of particular proceedings to be reported. The Government are anxious to reduce the difficulties of the Press in this matter to the minimum and it seemed to us, therefore, that there would be advantage in having a provision in the Bill under which a public notice was posted of the results of committal proceedings.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Antony Buck: While many hon. Members welcome the inclusion of the new Clause in the Bill, some

of us are not happy about the position of the Press in relation to the restrictions being placed on the reporting of committal proceedings. However, we will be discussing that matter at a later stage. Suffice to say that we should do everything we can to facilitate the working of the Press, remembering that the Press has done a great deal for the cause of justice in the magistrates' courts and elsewhere for very many years.
My experience in the courts leads me to believe that there has rarely been a breach of an undertaking about publication. I am sure that that is the experience of most hon. Members. Generally speaking, when an undertaking has been given by the Press, or when a suggestion has been made about it being inappropriate for something to be reported, the Press has kept its word. I am grateful for that, and that fact should make us particularly concerned to do everything possible in the Bill to facilitate the easy reporting of what the Press is still to be allowed to report. For that reason, I welcome the Clause.
As drafted, the Clause provides for the publication of the results of committal proceedings. Is it anticipated that there will be any obligation to publish the facts of an adjournment to another date in cases where that occurs? If that were done the Press would know what is happening and could keep tabs on the progress of cases. I understand that there is no obligation for this to be done under the Clause as drafted and I trust that the Home Secretary will give further thought to this matter.
The Amendment which stands in my name provides for an extension of the duty of the servants of magistrates' courts to make further facts known. It is envisaged in the Amendment that, at the start of every court day, there shall be published a list—rather like the calendar which is at present published—stating
…the name, address and age (if known) of every person … to be brought before magistrates … stating briefly the offence or offences charged …
Although I am grateful that the Amendment has been selected, I am aware that its wording may be faulty in certain respects. However, the idea is there; that there should be available to the Press each day a list setting out what is to be done, very much like the calendar that is published at the moment.
The principle of the Amendment would seem to be a reasonable one. I understand from friends of the Press that the Press has from time to time found difficulty in getting from magistrates' courts a calendar or list of the cases which are to be disposed of on a particular day. It is no: unreasonable that a magistrates' court should provide such a daily list. This would facilitate the working of the Press arid I hope that the Government will consider it appropriate to do something of this nature, perhaps by administrative direction.
The only reticence I have about the Amendment and the Clause is that it places a marginal additional burden on the staffs of magistrates' courts. I hope that the Government will give an indication of the staffing position of these courts. I understand that great burdens have been placed on them recently, because of the increased number of cases they must handle and the procedural changes that have been made. However, while the Amendment would add a small additional burden, I hope that the Government will accept the principle of it.

Mr. Walter Clegg: What, under the Clause, would be the effect of failure to comply? Would failure to publish such a notice have any effect on the validity of the court's proceedings?
I support the Amendment, which would be of considerable assistance to the Press, and I hope that the Government will accept the principle involved—perhaps, as my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) suggested, by adopting an administrative method of enforcing it.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davis: I agree with everything that has been said about the new Clause and the Amendment. I also support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck). I rise merely to point out that the Press will still be empowered to report cases which are not for committal and which, in the outcome, will be tried in the petty sessional courts.
I hope that in listing the cases which will be dealt with at each day's hearing—and this is now important in all criminal courts, but particularly in petty sessional courts—this will be done to show those cases which it is proposed to take for

committal and those not so taken. The Press will then be in a position to see what is likely to happen during the day and be able to make their arrangements accordingly.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I was not a member of the Committee which considered the Bill upstairs, although I have read the Committee's proceedings with interest and instruction. I anticipate—although I will be happy if someone will inform me that I am wrong —what will be the effect of the Amendment.
The Home Secretary has done the House proud. I am grateful to him for having tabled many of the new Clauses which appear on the Notice Paper, but we have not had very long in which to study their effects. This Clause deals with a vexed question and in considering the matter one's views are bound to go one way and then the other. The Amendment to it appears to seek to have the worst of both worlds, unless I have misunderstood it.
This is my understanding of the Amendment: a man is charged with having committed an offence in a public urinal in connection with someone of the same sex and in circumstances which are familiar to us from our reading, if not from our personal experience. As I understand, he is charged with an offence in respect of which he can be committed for trial, and he may say, "I desire that the committal proceedings shall not be reported". He can then elect to go for trial, when the matter will be challenged.
During the course of the case—and I believe that this type of thing will often happen—the magistrate may say, "We are not going to commit. There is no evidence against this man. We do not believe what is said by the other person who was wandering around in this urinal". If, at that stage, under the Amendment, the man, having been completely acquitted, has his name bunged up on a notice board for all the public to see with what he has been charged with—

Mr. Buck: No. That is not the position.

Mr. Hale: I apologise if I am wrong. I should still like to be told why I am


wrong in the terms of the Clause, which states:
Where a magistrates' court acting as examining justices commits any person for trial or determines to discharge him, the clerk of the court shall, on the day on which the committal proceedings are concluded or the next day, cause to be displayed in a part of the court house to which the public have access a notice—

(a) in either case giving that person's name, address, and age (if known);
(b) in a case where the court so commits him, stating the charge or charges on which he is committed and the court to which he is committed;
(c) in a case where the court dismisses the charge, describing the offence charged and stating that it has dismissed the charge."
That is what is on the Notice Paper. I always listen to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Marlyebone (Mr. Hogg) with respect and attention, and almost invariable disagreement, but that is how it seems to me to be.
It seems a little tragic. The whole of the publicity comes out at the time when it is a little too late to trouble to collect or publish—or have the right to publish —all the facts in the man's favour that induced the court to dismiss the charge, or the collapse of the prosecution evidence is not reported, and all the public know is that this man may have had a narrow escape from conviction of an offence that used to be regarded as infamous and which is not apt to win popularity in society even today—

Mr. Mark Carlisle: There is the effect of the new Clause and the terms of Clause 3 of the Bill. As I understand it, the new Clause merely states that certain particulars shall be pinned up in the magistrates' court after the case has been heard. In the case the hon. Gentleman has given, if the magistrates dismiss the charge the Press are already entitled under Clause 3 to publish all the facts of the evidence.

Mr. Hale: I thought not, on committal.

Mr. Carlisle: Yes, if the magistrates dismiss the case.

Mr. Hale: Perhaps I may just finish reading Clause 3 to myself, on my feet. I apologise for doing so, but I may be saving the time of the House, having wasted it. I understood that on the com-

mittal charge the defendant himself could opt to say that the matter should not be reported—[HON. MEMBERS: "No"] In view of the unanimity of the House, and the obvious fact that I could not carry my views to the Division Lobby with any substantial prospect of defeating the Government, I shall sit down—but I am still not convinced.

Mr. Hogg: I should like to press on the Government the proposed Amendment to the new Clause—not that I think it is worth a Division if it is not granted, but I hope that it will be granted in principle. I should also like to say what I understand is the effect of all this once it is done.
If an indictable charge is dismissed, the proceedings are open. The Press may report the case. I am saying this in order that the Minister may correct me if I am wrong, because it should be clearly understood, not only by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) but others whose duties it may be to report or not to report the proceedings. If an indictable charge is dismissed by the magistrates, at that stage the proceedings are open and everything may be reported as is provided by the particulars in the new Clause. The witnesses' evidence, the cross-examination, any reasons which may be given, counsel's speeches—all will be as open as they are now. It is only when an indictable charge is committed that, subject to the provisions of Clause 3, as now drafted, the reporting is restricted.
As I understand it, by this Clause the right hon. Gentleman is doing something for the convenience of the Press. First of all, in the event of a committal—and I think that the Clause is rather inelegantly drafted, and that it is the inelegance of the drafting which has misled the hon. Member for Oldham, West—the Press have an authentic copy of what may be reported, and where they are subjected to this restriction. It is a safeguard for the Press that the court should be under an obligation to give them what they need. I understand that to be the broad effect of the Clause.
That being the main effect, it is rather inelegant to put. in paragraph (c), what happens when the court dismisses the charge. It is because of that inelegance that the hon. Member for Oldham, West has, if I may say so, misunderstood the


total effect of the new Clause when read with Clause 3. I am not quite sure why paragraph (c) is included, and perhaps we should be told, but that is the fountain and the origin—

Mr. Hale: I am much obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. I really am not trying to make an academic point. One has some experience of Press reporting at petty sessions. Are the Press to stop there, taking notes for two or three days in anticipation that something may happen that will enable them to publish? Or is not the fact, whether or not I misread the drafting—and I am very grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his generous defence which, impromptu, I thought was very kind of him—that the Press will keep away for three days while the committal proceedings are being decided, and then pop in to say that Alderman Jones, of a certain council, was that day found not guilty of sexuality in this famous urinal?

Mr. Hogg: To answer that question would take me rather far beyond the rules of order. It would be much more in order to answer it when discussing some Amendments to Clause 3 itself rather than when we are discussing the new Clause.
All I was seeking to do was to disabuse the mind of the hon. Member for Oldham, West about the effect of the new Clause. I did so very largely to pave the way for saying two sentences in support of my hon. Friend's proposed Amendment.
That Amendment has merits, although it goes well beyond the Clause. It is designed to help the Press really to understand what summary offences are about. The Clause deals with indictable offences but the Amendment extends beyond that. My right hon. and hon. Friends thought that to provide official, authentic material for the Press, as laid out in the proposed Amendment, would be of real assistance to the Press and, in fact, some protection to them in the case of a possible action for defamation based on the reporting of details which might be inadequately gleaned from some other source. We think that this is an advantage. We know that it puts some additional burden on the court, but we wonder whether the Home Secretary and his colleagues will not give this proposal

careful consideration in view of the fact that there is a good deal of misgiving generally in the Press about the restriction in reporting of indictable offences.
I would commend the Amendment to the right hon. Gentleman's sympathetic consideration, bearing in mind the fact that whatever we may think about trials by jury, out of 220,000 indictable cases in the most recent year I have seen, 197,500 were dealt with summarily and would therefore not come within the committal proceedings at all but would be treated as summary offences.

Mr. Grieve: In view of what has been said so far I rise with some temerity, but I welcome the new Clause and, at the same time, support the proposed Amendment. There has been a great deal of criticism throughout the country of Clauses that are designed to ensure that publicity shall not be given to committal proceedings before the justices. That is a very controversial proposition. The effect of the Clause and of my hon. Friend's Amendment will at least be to enable the Press to be absolutely certain of where they stand as to what they may or may not report. It will to some extent, at any rate, counteract what I believe to be the vice of the silencing of the Press in committal proceedings. The vice is that where truth is not known rumour flies and lies abroad.
If this new Clause and the Amendment go through, the Press will know in advance what cases are coming before a magistrates' court and they can take notes. Then afterwards they can see what has been the result of every case and see what they may report and what they may not report. For those reasons I hope the House will support my hon. Friend's Amendment.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. David Weitzman: I hope that the House will not accept the Amendment. I agree with the criticism made by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) in regard to paragraph (c) in the new Clause. I do not know why that is included. It is quite true that under the Clause adopting its provisions, the nature of the offence could be stated, but I cannot see why the offence charged should be mentioned in the notice.
However, the Amendment makes it worse, because it prescribes that the day before the hearing takes place a full description shall be given of the person laying the information and the nature of the offence. That itself might give rise to rumours and could certainly reflect on the accused person quite unnecessarily.

Mr. Taverne: First, I shall answer a few questions posed about the effect of the Amendment. I was asked whether adjournments could also be published and how would anyone know that there had been an adjournment? Of course, people would know that there had been an adjournment when they did not see a result. There is not quite the same public interest in an adjournment and not the same need for the identity to be published.
I was asked about the effect of noncompliance with the new Clause. I have not had time to consider this fully, but if courts did not conform with statutory duties there are powers which can be used to make them conform or a writ of mandamus might lie.

Mr. Buck: It is not fair to the Press to say that the Press can find whether there has been an adjournment. It is a little thing to ask that the fact should be published that there has been an adjournment. It would be a great help to the Press to know to what day the case has been adjourned and so forth.

Mr. Taverne: The Press could obviously find the date to which the case had been adjourned, but there is not the same requirement and we want to make the burden put on the courts as small as possible. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), the explanation given by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) about a dismissal of a charge is correct.
I was asked why paragraph (c) has been added to the new Clause. There are a number of reasons why it should be in the Clause. In the first place, if we oblige courts to post up a notice that there has been a committal, we should oblige them to post a notice if there is no committal. In certain cases where there has been considerable publicity in connection with the original charge it is reasonable that there should be publicity

to show that there has been a dismissal of the charge. That would be in the public interest.
The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) asked me to consider the Amendment. As he said, wider issues arising under Clause 3 can be discussed later when we come to other Amendments. I have a great deal of sympathy with this Amendment. We realise that the Press faces certain difficulties under Clause 3. The Amendment goes much wider than the new Clause as it deals with all criminal proceedings in magistrates' courts, not only cases of committal to which at present Clause 3 applies, and not only does it ask for the identity and charges to be posted up but also the age and address of the person concerned and other details. That is going rather far.
Over the years the Press has persistently represented that in many magistrates' courts reporters have had difficulty in obtaining in advance the kind of information which they should have. They have had particular difficulty in getting the addresses of witnesses stated in open court where they would attract privilege if by mischance the addresses were wrongly reported. Charge sheets for the information of officials and Press representatives are made available, but the forms vary considerably from court to court. Some give the names only, some the names and the towns, but comparatively few give both the names and home addresses. There are complaints by the Press that all are subject to error.
On the privilege question, which, perhaps, is the most important, this Amendment does not cure the difficulty, because a notice of the day's business is no part of the proceedings and would not attract privilege. I have had the advantage of a talk with the Chairman of the Press Council on this point and it was agreed that we should send out a circular to all the clerks of the magistrates' courts, asking that where addresses are given in evidence the courts should reconsider their practice. That circular will be issued. The Chairman of the Press Council agreed with the terms of the circular and expressed satisfaction that it should be sent out. That would be an administrative direction of the kind which the hon. Member sought and would cure


the main difficulty which the Press has to meet today.
If we went on to ask for other matters to be published we would be imposing a considerable burden on the courts. Legislation should impose precise obligations and one of the difficulties is that the defendant's address would have to be given on the notice, but a court does not always have a complete and accurate information of the address. It would have to be the last known address which might not necessarily be the current home address. The legislation would have to apply to all proceedings and would cover all the numerous minor traffic offences which come before magistrates' courts. This would mean that in certain cases in large towns the courts would have to post up hundreds of names.
It is true that most courts prepare for their own purposes certain lists, but they do not go so far as to include all the particulars asked for. To provide all those particulars on the notice would mean imposing a very considerable extra burden on magistrates' courts staffs. It would be quite a different problem from the case the hon. Member mentioned of quarter sessions and assizes where there are much fewer cases. Where there were hundreds of parking offence cases to deal with, a considerable burden would be imposed.
We want to give the Press all reasonable help. The new Clause will assist considerably and I think that the circular of administrative direction will assist in the most important respect. In view of the administrative direction being issued, I hope that the hon. Member for Colchester will not press his Amendment.

Mr. Buck: As I explained, I have no power to press the Amendment because it has not been selected for a Division. I am grateful to the hon. and learned

New clause No. 6.— (CONSTITUTION AND FUNCTIONS OF PRISON LICENSING BOARD AND LOCAL REVIEW COMMITTEES.)

(1)For the purpose of exercising the functions conferred on it by this part of this Act there shall be a body to be known as the prison Licensing Board consisting of a chairman and not less than four other members appointed by the Secretary of State.



(2) It shall be the duty of the Board to advise the Secretary of State with respect to—


5
(a) the release on licence under section 41(1) or section (Release on licence of persons sentenced to imprisonment for life, etc.), and the recall under section 42, of this Act of persons whose cases have been referred to the Board by the Secretary of State;


10
(b) the conditions of such licences and the variation or cancellation of such conditions; and

Gentleman for what he has said. We are all fascinated to hear about the circular. May we be allowed to see its terms? Apparently it has gone about throughout the country. Is it not appropriate that its terms should be tabled? That would seem appropriate. Although it is not customary to make public circulars of this character, in this instance there would seem to be no objection. Is the point of privilege met by what is proposed in the circular?

Sir D. Renton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) said that his Amendment to the Clause had not been selected for a Division. I wonder whether we could have your guidance on this issue, because the Amendment has been selected. I have always understood that that means that, if the hon. Member concerned should wish to press it to a Division when the time comes, he would be at liberty to do so and would not be prevented by the Chair from dividing the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) was not selected, but Mr. Speaker permitted it to be discussed with new Clause No. 5. Therefore, it is not open to the hon. Member to move his Amendment and still less to ask for a Division on it.

Mr. Taverne: We will certainly place the terms of the circular in the Library, if that is desired. The circular covers the point of privilege. It would have gone out already, but for these Amendments coming forward. They delayed it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

(c) any other matter so referred which is connected with the release on licence or recall of persons to whom the said section 41 or the said section (Release on licence of persons sentenced to imprisonment for life, etc.) applies.


15
(3) The following provisions shall have effect with respect to the proceedings of the Board on any case referred to it, that is to say—



(a) the Board shall deal with the case on consideration of any documents given to it by the Secretary of State; and


20
(b) if in any particular case the Board thinks it necessary to interview the person to whom the case relates before reaching a decision, the Board may request one of its members to interview him and shall take into account the report of that interview by that member;



and without prejudice to the foregoing, the Secretary of State may by rules make provision with respect to the proceedings of the Board on cases referred to it, including provision authorising such cases to be dealt with by a prescribed number of members of the Board.


25
(4) The documents to be given by the Secretary of State to the Board under the last foregoing subsection shall include—


30
(a) where the case referred to the Board is one of release under section 41 or section (Release on licence of persons sentenced to imprisonment for life, etc.) of this Act, any written representations made by the person to whom the case relates in connection with or since his last interview in accordance with rules under the next following subsection;



(b) where the case so referred relates to a person recalled under section 42 of this Act, any written representations made under that section.



(5) The Secretary of State may by rules make provision—


35
(a) for the establishment and constitution of local review committees having the duty of reviewing at such times or in such circumstances as may be prescribed by or determined under the rules the cases of persons who are or will become eligible for release under section 41 or section (Release on licence of persons sentenced to imprisonment for life, etc.) of this Act and reporting to the Secretary of State on their suitability for release on licence; and


40



(b) for the interview of such persons by a member of any such committee (not being a prison officer);



and rules under this subsection may make different provision for different cases.


45
(6) The supplementary provisions contained in Schedule (Provisions as to the Prison Licensing Board and local review committees) to this Act shall have effect with respect to the Prison Licensing Board and local review committees.—[Mr. Roy Jenkins.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Speaker has indicated that with new Clause 6 there can be discussed the Amendment thereto in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton), in line 19, leave out from 'Board' to end of line 21 and insert 'shall do so'.
New Clause No. 7—"Release on licence of persons sentenced to imprisonment for life, etc."—together with the Amendment thereto in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), in line 7, at end insert:
Such consultation shall take place before the case is referred to the Board by the Secretary of State under section (Constitution and functions of Prison Licensing Board and local review committees), and the Board shall before considering their recommendation have available the result of such consultation.

Government Amendment No. 72; Government Amendments Nos. 46 and 78; Government Amendments Nos. 47 and 48, together with the Amendment to Government Amendment No. 48 in the name of the right hon. Member for St. Marylebone, in line 3, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'. Government Amendments Nos. 49–52 plus Amendment No. 53; Government Amendment No. 60, together with the Amendment thereto in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marvlebone, in line 4. after 'held' insert 'high'.
Mr. Speaker has indicated that separate Divisions can be asked for, if so desired.

Mr. Hale: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Amendment No. 53, which you have just stated can be discussed with this group was tabled by me before my right hon. Friend tabled the new Clause and at a time when I had not realised that my right hon. Friend had given a definite promise to produce a new Clause. The new Clause is eminently satisfactory to me. I have no desire to


move or to refer to Amendment No. 53 again in the course of this discussion.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale).
I hope that, in view of the number of new Clauses and Amendments, Amendments to new Clauses, and Amendments to Amendments, which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have indicated that we might discuss together, I shall be able to remember what I am endeavouring to present to the House.
The Bill as it stands confers on the Home Secretary an absolute discretion to release on licence a prisoner who has completed the specified minimum period. On Second Reading on 12th December I said that I would be glad to listen to the views of hon. Members on both sides as to whether there should be an independent parole board. We discussed this matter exhaustively in Committee.
I hope that it will be agreed, as it appears to be from the remarks which have been made so far today, that, although we no doubt are not able to please everybody on all points, we benefited during the Committee stage very greatly from the advice given from different parts of the House and that the attitude of the Government on the Bill has not been "take it or leave it", but that we have been anxious to listen to different points of view and have improved The Bill substantially as a result of the advice we have received.
To come more specifically to this issue, in Committee on 7th March, in a debate on Opposition Amendments to put the whole licensing scheme in the hands of a completely independent and, I thought, rather excessively judicial parole board, I outlined the alternative scheme which is now substantially embodied in these Clauses and Amendments.
4.45 p.m.
The essential features of the licensing scheme fall into five main parts. First, the cases of eligible prisoners will be periodically reviewed by local review committees. These will be part of the Home Office machinery, rather than part of the Board machinery. The committees will report to the Secretary of State on prisoners' suitability for release on licence.
I envisage that these local review committees should be composed probably of a prison governor, of a senior probation officer in the area, and of a member of the board of visitors or visiting committee, as the case may be. It would certainly be appropriate that at this stage the prisoner should be seen by one member of this committee and not by a member of the prison staff. Probably the senior probation officer would, not necessarily in all, but in most, cases, be the most appropriate person to do this.
Secondly, with the help of these reports the Secretary of State will select for reference to the Prison Licensing Board those cases which appear suitable for consideration for release on licence. It is intended that this filter, as I think it can best be described, should ensure that the Board would consider those cases in which the Prison Department of the Home Office thinks that there is a good prima facie case for release, together with some marginal cases in which release would be reasonable but which might not necessarily be recommended by the Prison Department or by the Secretary of State of the day.
As I endeavoured to explain in Committee, I attach great importance to not creating a complete divorce between the Prison Department and the Prison Licensing Board. That would be a most unfortunate situation to get into. It would be extremely bad for the morale of the Prison Department, because it would, as I said in Committee, turn its officers into gaolers and nothing else. Secondly, I think that it would allow our processes to get out of step with each other, because the Prison Department, under the Secretary of State, has constantly to take a whole series of important, and, I hope, in many cases constructive, decisions about what happens to a prisoner, whether he should be moved from a maximum security prison to a closed but lesser security prison, whether he should be sent from a closed prison to an open prison, or whether he should be selected for the hostel scheme.
It would clearly not be sensible from the point of view of constructive penal policy if these processes were to operate entirely independently of the process of selection for parole. This could do nothing but harm and would merely mean that the development of the prisoner could


not follow a logical pattern leading up to what I hope in some cases may be the successful culmination of parole.
Thirdly, the Board will give to the Home Secretary its advice on the cases referred to it and the Home Secretary will be empowered to release on licence only if the Board has recommended release.
I gave the closest attention and a great deal of thought to the question whether I should make the Board to this extent mandatory, or whether I should retain in the Secretary of State of the day the power to release, even if the Board recommended against release. I came to the conclusion on balance, and after great consideration and discussion, that it would be better to proceed as I am proposing to do on this third point. I believe that the value to a Secretary of State of being able to override the Board would, in practice, be of very small value indeed. The number of cases in which he would do so would be absolutely minimal, but if the right to do so was there, I think—here I took great notice of the point which the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) made to me in Committee—that these individual cases would be more within the arena of politics, and I think that there are disadvantages in that regard. I decided, therefore, that the procedure should be that the Secretary of State of the day should be empowered to release only where the Board's recommendation was in favour of it.
It is not necessary to have the right of veto the other way because, under the filter system, only cases which the Secretary of State considers to be within the broad band of those eligible or nearly eligible for release will be put to the board. There is no need, therefore, to preserve a right for the Secretary of State to say, "No. The board recommends release, but I think that there are certain overriding public considerations why he should not be released". That point is dealt with at an earlier stage.
Before coming to the fourth consideration, I shall deal with a question which touches on one of the Amendments. While the Secretary of State may release a prisoner whom the board has recommended for release on parole, it is not mandatory upon him to do so immedi-

ately. It is "may" release, not "must" release. I put this in largely for what one can almost call technical reasons. I do not for a moment envisage that one would overturn the recommendation of the board in this way and continue to hold in custody for a substantial period a prisoner whose release had been recommended. I have put this provision in to deal with the situation where, on treatment grounds, a prisoner's release should not take place until he has had a certain period of notice or where the board's recommendation may be contingent on suitable arrangements being made for his accommodation or employment outside, arrangements which may not be easy to make overnight.

Mr. Grieve: I am most reluctant to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman's thread of argument, but will he assist the House by saying what will happen in a case which is referred to the board and, after it has been so referred, it appears that there are what he has called overriding public considerations why there should not be a release? Is the Secretary of State then obliged to release, or is there a provision whereby he may withdraw the case from the board?

Mr. Jenkins: The Secretary of State of the day would not be statutorily obliged to release because the provision in the new Clause is that he may release where the board has so recommended. I was saying that I had not put this in in order that, in practice, the Secretary of State should override the board. But, should a circumstance such as that envisaged by the hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) arise in which some new dramatic—no, I do not say "dramatic"—some genuinely new circumstance came to light, it would be possible for the Secretary of State to hold up the release and put the case back to the board.
Unless the board, being aware of the new circumstance, took the view that it wished to reverse its decision, I do not think that, in practice, the Secretary of State could or should go against the decision of the board. But he would have this time for manoeuvre in which he could put the base back to the board.
The main reason why I had made this a permissive rather than mandatory provision is not to deal with such rather


exceptional cases, though it has value from that point of view, but to deal with what I think are likely to be the more frequent circumstances where a prisoner, clearly, should be released but the chances of his successful rehabilitation depend upon a little time—I envisage no great period—to prepare him for release so that he is not thrown immediately on the world without it being possible to make arrangements for his supervision, his employment or his living conditions.
Were it not provided that the Secretary of State "may" release but he had to release immediately the board's decision was given, this would be the equivalent of a judicial decision to acquit, and I think that it would be competent for those acting on behalf of the prisoner to apply for a writ of habeas corpus, and, clearly, one would not wish that to happen.
I come now to the fourth point on the scheme which I wish to make. I have considered whether the existing power to release life-sentence prisoners on licence should be subject to the above provision. I have decided that, if the board is set up, it is logical that it should deal with life-sentence prisoners as well as those sentenced to a fixed term. However, in the case of life-sentence prisoners, there will be no minimum period of one year. Obviously, one cannot have a minimum period of one-third of sentence, but neither will there be a minimum period of one year. I have made this provision for two reasons, both of which are good, though different.
First, to put in the period of one year could raise false expectations that most life-sentence prisoners could be considered for release after a period of anything like one year. Second, in the case of murder charges, if the verdict is guilty, the court has no alternative but to pronounce a life sentence, though in certain very exceptional cases the court might, if it could give a determinate sentence, award a very short sentence indeed. I think it better that in these cases, therefore, there should be no limitation of one year.

Mr. Weitzman: I am troubled about the provisions for release on licence. In the ordinary way, the Home Secretary has the right to release on licence. Does this mean that he will no longer have the

right to release on licence, the word being "may", if release on licence is recommended?

Mr. Jenkins: My hon. and learned Friend's question gives me an opportunity to explain a point to the House. It means that life-sentence prisoners will in future be subject to the review of the parole board, and the Home Secretary will not have the right to go against the parole board. It does not mean that the Home Secretary will lose his right to advise the use of the Royal Prerogative in exceptional cases or when new evidence arises. This will apply equally to life-sentence prisoners and to fixed-term prisoners. I hope that that deals with the point.
The fifth point I make is that in all cases any written representations made by the prisoner will be considered by the local review committee, by the prison department of the Home Office and by the Home Secretary, and, if the case goes to the Prison Licensing Board, by the board itself. I have already explained that I envisage that, at the first stage, the prisoner will be seen by one member of the local review committee. I think that the board should have the right to see a prisoner where it feels that this would help it to make up its mind, and there is an Amendment down to deal with that point.
It is more sensible that the board should be able to delegate to one of its members the task of seeing a prisoner rather than that it should have to do it as a whole. In the first place, I envisage that, when such an interview takes place, a member of the board would go to the prison and see the prisoner there. I do not envisage having prisoners eligible for parole brought up in large numbers to London and brought before the board. I say that for two reasons. First—this is, perhaps, the lesser reason—there is the obvious security problem. If refused parole, people might be in a very escape-conscious state. Second, and more important, it would be extremely unsettling for prisoners if they were brought up and given, as it were, this second trial in London and then returned to their prisons because they had been unsuccessful.
It is important that the work of considering their cases should be done in as informal a way as possible, breaking their prison routine as little as possible. For


that reason, I hope that the Amendment suggesting that the board as a whole must see the prisoners, which would necessarily involve their being brought to London, will not be pressed.
5.0 p.m.
Those are the five main aspects of the new scheme to which I draw the attention of the House. I come now to the work of the Prison Licensing Board as I envisage it. We estimate that the Board's work would take up roughly five working days a month and that the number of cases it would review—there must clearly be a degree of approximation about all these estimates—would be about 750, perhaps rising to 1,000 in a year.
The appointments would be made by the Home Secretary of the day on a part-time basis, with remuneration on the same basis. The Schedule requires at least one of the members to hold or to have held judicial office. There is an Amendment to put in the words "high judicial office", which I think would necessarily mean that he should be a judge of the High Court. I should be a little reluctant to accept that, although I certainly envisage that the judicial member of the Board should be somebody who has had experience at least as a recorder, or having sat at quarter sessions, and I think that that would be covered by the Schedule as drafted.
I am not anxious to specify that he should be a judge, first, because I do not wish the Board to have too judicial a character. I do not think that it is essentially a judicial process. Many other considerations must be taken into account, and, although there can clearly be different views about this, I think that if the chairman is not to be a judge it might be easier that a judge should not be asked to sit under the chairman. I do not totally rule out having a judge, but there is already a great strain on judicial manpower and it is by no means easy to get judges to undertake these further tasks.
The other members of the Board must include a psychiatrist, a child-care expert, and a criminologist or penologist. Further details of how the Board and the committees will function in practice are outlined in the Schedule and, if necessary, further details can be given.
One remaining point which I think is important is the question of continued consultation with the Lord Chief Justice and the trial judge, if he be alive, in murder cases and cases where a life sentence has been imposed. That provision was inserted in the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act. It has worked reasonably satisfactorily since then, and I believe that it will continue to work reasonably satisfactorily.
We took such consultation before releasing people who were convicted long before that Act came into force. There is an Amendment specifying the stage at which this should be done. It is my intention that in all normal cases we would consult the Lord Chief Justice and the trial judge, if he be alive, before putting the papers to the Prison Licensing Board and it would have them available to it. But I would rather not put that in the Statute. A little flexibility here might be desirable, but it is certainly my intention so to proceed.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I rise on a small point but one that is possibly not without importance. My right hon. Friend has twice spoken about the trial judge being alive. The language of New Clause 7 is
the trial judge if available".
I wondered whether my right hon. Friend regards the terms as interchangeable. They probably are.

Mr. Jenkins: I suppose that one could envisage circumstances in which the trial judge might still be alive but, regrettably, might not be in a condition in which his advice would be of much value and I think that "available" covers those circumstances.
It is also the practice in capital cases now for the trial judge to write afterwards to the Secretary of State giving his view, and that letter remains on the file. Therefore, the trial judge's view at the time, which is perhaps of considerably more value than his recollection eight or nine years later, is available to the Home Secretary in such cases whenever he must consider what should be done.
We have been making good progress, and I do not wish to speak at length. If other points of detail are raised I shall try to reply to them. I commend to the House this scheme, which I believe goes


a very long way to meet most of the points which have been put forward from different sides, gives us a workable scheme, one which will give the parole system a chance to get off to a very good start and at the same time allay some of the fears about it which were previously expressed.

Mr. Richard Sharples: Would the right hon. Gentleman deal with his own very important Amendment, Amendment No. 48, and the Amendment to it.

Mr. Jenkins: If the hon. Gentleman raises points on them I shall reply when I speak again.

Mr. Hogg: I do not want to speak at length. This is the major improvement which has been made in the Bill as a result of debate. I said on the Second Reading that we would propose to treat the creation of a parole board as the only question that we thought was worth a party division and the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) asked "Why party?" Fortunately, his question has now developed into fact, because after a long debate in the Committee it became clear that the right hon. Gentleman had come down in favour of a parole board. I thank him, therefore, for having taken account of the very strong practical and constitutional arguments which we had been putting form ward in favour of such a board.
It is true that the composition of the board which he now proposes is different from that which we set down in detail in Committee. We must, naturally, work with much greater disadvantages than the Government, with the resources available to them, and our Amendments in Committee were based in substance upon the experience of countries in which parole hoards have been in operation for some time, both in the Commonwealth and in individual States in the United States.
I still think that the set of proposals which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Learning-ton (Sir J. Hobson) collated and put down in. Committee was very good. But it would be unjust and wrong for us to cavil at the alternative proposals put forward by the Home Secretary, and my object in speaking now is largely to welcome what he said, with two or three reservations which I shall make later.

But, in general, I endorse the four or five points he put to the House, and I shall not repeat them.
In particular, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is right in the compromise he has reached on the question whether the parole board should have mandatory or advisory functions. On reflection, I think that he is right to submit the flow of material to the board to a pre-filtering process which will give him control of it through the Department, and will go some way to alleviate what I know was the Department's internal opposition to the creation of a board. To have thus avoided conflict between himself and the board at this stage in one direction is an ingenious and proper thing to have done.
Having gone as far as that, he is right to use the word "may" in the new Clause to give himself the right but not the immediate duty, if the parole board so recommends, to effect the release. I think that the arguments he has presented—

Mr. Sydney Silverman: The right hon. and learned Gentleman and my right hon. Friend have spoken about the fact that this gives him what is not an immediate duty. Does it give him any duty at all?

Mr. Hogg: I think that it probably does, but not one enforceable by the courts by habeus corpus. As I understand, he has a legal discretion with the courts. Supposing that a parole board had recommended the release of a particular prisoner, and he had, for one reason or another, delayed the release, he would be under an obligation to explain himself to this House, and to the public. He has a political duty to follow the parole board in the ordinary course of events.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: A Home Secretary would, in addition, be in the position that the parole board had recommended the release of the prisoner whom he had submitted to the board as being, prima facie, in a category suitable for release. Therefore, I cannot perceive that any Home Secretary, except for a short period, would wish to overrule the board.

Mr. Silverman: Would it then, not be much better if his limitation, or protective reservation, on the Home Secretary's


duties was expressly stated, so that it was not purely discretionary, even though the combination of the pressures to which my right hon. Friend has referred might produce a situation where such a requirement was not necessary.

Mr. Hogg: If I might intervene in this discussion for a moment, I would not have complained had there been a mandatory provision in the Clause as drafted. It would have given rise to some of the difficulties which the right hon. Gentleman has considered, and as in the long run, it will be the Home Secretary of the day who will have to "carry the can", politically, for the premature release of prisoners, I feel that he ought to have at any rate, so far as the courts are concerned, some degree of discrimination. My own feeling is that although there are weighty considerations in both directions, the right hon. Gentleman has probably arrived at an agreeable solution. At least, I do not feel disposed to criticise him on that point.
On the other hand, I think that the right hon. Gentleman could improve his scheme by imposing upon himself a duty to recall if the parole board recommends recall. The reverse case is not subject to the consideration to which the primary case is subject. Having given himself the right to consider a recommendation by the parole board to release, there are not the same considerations available of a purely advisory rôle for the board when it comes to the revoking of the licence. This is one of the two points—a minor but important point—upon which I would seek to criticise what he has done.
The other point for which I criticise the right hon. Gentleman is his stubborn —I can only describe it as stubborn—refusal to agree to the word "high" being inserted before the words "judicial office" in the new Schedule. I do not agree with him that a high judicial officer is necessarily a sitting High Court judge. My hon. Friends, when engaged in some discussions with me before we put our Amendment down, may remember that I pointed this out to them at the time. Perhaps I might give two examples, of two people, one of whom cannot be appointed, and the other, whom I am not suggesting should be appointed.
My father held high judicial office; he was Lord Chancellor. But he was not a High Court judge at any time in his life. Lord Devlin has held high judicial office, but he is not a sitting High Court judge. I could give numerous examples of persons, who, for one reason or another, have accepted the qualifications which I have put into my Amendment, but who would still qualify without being a sitting High Court judge. I am not sure that a Lord Justice of Appeal would be a bad choice for this kind of judicial function.
My hon. Friends and I attach extreme importance to the maintaining of close and friendly relations between the higher ranks of the judiciary, who impose the sentences and the Home Office, who, under this system through the Licensing Board, will, in effect, vary or reduce sentences. This relationship would be best secured by including in the membership in the Licensing Board someone with judicial experience of the higher type of one sort or another, who was familiar with the judiciary. The right hon. Gentleman says that the functions of the parole board are not judicial. I accept that; it is common ground between us.
5.15 p.m.
There are many considerations which are not purely judicial which ought to enter into the mind of the Licensing Board before it either agrees to the recommendation to release a prisoner serving a long sentence, or before it turns down an application from the Home Office. The progress of the prisoner under treatment in prison, the chances of his finding a suitable niche in life while on parole, these and many other considerations are suitable for a parole board and are not primarily judicial.
I would not have asked for a primarily judicial body, or necessarily that the judicial member should be in the chair, although probably, if I found myself in the right hon. Gentleman's position, and formed a parole board, I would think that the judicial member might be a very suitable occupant of the chair. Where I quarrel with the right hon. Gentleman is in his assumption that the holding of a recordership is necessarily a good qualification for this.
There are recorders and recorders. Almost all of those who have spoken in Committee seem to be recorders except


myself. Therefore, I speak with very great trepidation about recorders, but I read quite a lot about them in the columns of The Times, especially in the reports of the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, and I am not sure that I was altogether reassured by the right hon. Gentleman saying that he had that sort of person in mind to be a member of the parole board.
I have great respect for recorders as a race, even though I have never aspired to become one, but on the whole what the right hon. Gentleman has done in his refusal to contemplate my Amendment is simply to put in his prospectus that he will not ensure that he has a good judge, but he will have a judge of some sort, perhaps not of the best. In that way we can get the worst of both worlds. I am a great admirer of the members of my profession, and always stand by it when I can, but I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that a good lawyer is a very good article indeed, and very often a very good social scientist, too.
A bad lawyer is a very bad article indeed to exercise prerogatives connected with compassion and mercy. He is apt to be out of touch with reality, and both on the constitutional grounds that I have mentioned and on the grounds that the House is under an obligation to those with whom the parole board will have to deal, I must press the right hon. Gentleman to give way on this point.
I want to say one more thing by way of explanation to the House. Oppositions are in a horrible dilemma in dealing with Governments. If they do not win they are accused of not giving way, of not being interested, because hon. Members on both sides tend not to come. If they do win, then they are immediately accused of turning into party issues matters which should be above politics. We have tried to effect a reasonable compromise which would lead us out of this dilemma.
We intend to have a Division on one or two Amendments, with our Whips on, not because we want to turn the issue into a party political issue, which manifestly it is not, but because we think that the dignity of the House on matters to which we attach importance requires the attendance of Members on both sides and that their attendance should be recorded in order to placate the criticism

to which the House is sometimes subjected.
I therefore hope that what we do will be a model for future occasions. It delights the Whips, because it gets Members here. I hope that no offence will be taken if, from time to time, we record our opinion in the formal way without necessarily demanding the resignation of the Home Secretary.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I do not feel under any obligation to comment on the last part of the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), and I do not propose to do so, because I think that the question whether the compromise which he recommends, and which he has recommended successfully to his colleagues, is good or bad, will he better judged when we see it in operation.
However, I agree with what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said at the beginning of his speech, namely, that the new Clause is the major improvement for which we asked in Committee. It is one of the two improvements which I most wanted to see made. The second has not come about, and I await with great interest to see how the compromise about which the right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke will apply to it when we reach Clause 10.
The suggestion which has been made is wholly admirable, except in one particular. I should have preferred there to be a mandatory side to the release procedure. There are plenty of protections. The Home Office has a preliminary veto. Under the procedure no man will have any right even to be considered for parole if the Home Secretary thinks that he should not be so considered. That is a serious discretionary reserve which no doubt the Home Secretary will exercise justly and wisely.
Then a second hurdle has to be got over. If the Home Secretary decides that the parole board should consider the case in question, he still has to persuade the board that it is a case in which it should act. Suppose that the Home Secretary has decided that the case is a proper case for consideration, and suppose that the parole board has decided that it is a proper case for release on licence. Why should not the man then have the right to say to the Home


Secretary, "Release me on licence. You could have stopped my case being considered and you thought it better not to do so. The board could have decided that I was not a fit person to release. But since you decided that mine was a proper case to be considered, and since the board, on consideration, decided that it was a proper case in which there should be release on licence, why is not that an end of the matter?"
The Home Secretary then says, "It is not an end of the matter, because there is a certain number of preconditions which cannot always be resolved overnight." Therefore, there may be a need for some delay. The man should not have the right to be released the next morning. There should be a reasonable pause for the Home Office to decide that the proper conditions which the parole board had in mind existed.
If that is all that he wanted, it would have been very easy to say so. It would have been very easy not to leave in the hands of the Home Secretary a discretion as to whether the matter should be decided by the parole board. It would have been perfectly easy to say that the man should be released unless the Home Secretary is not satisfied that one of a number of conditions which the parole board had in mind could not be immediately fulfilled and that he should not be released until it is fulfilled. I do not like the idea that, once the two decisions have been made and a quasi-judicial decision that the man should be released has been determined, the man should have no right in the matter. That is not the best way to deal with it, and there should have been a limited mandatory result.
I wish to pay some attention to the statement of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone that if the Home Secretary misbehaved in such a case he would still be responsible to the House of Commons. I never think it wise, in an individual case under the criminal law, to make it a matter which could be debated on party lines in the House of Commons. The only result of saying that there is sufficient protection for the individual concerned, namely, that if the Home Secretary is wrong he is answerable to the House of Commons, is to make it immediately an arguable point

between the Government and the Opposition as to whether the man should be released. I do not think that that is a good protection or a good thing in itself.

Mr. Hogg: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says, although he will probably concede that the situation can arise under the Clause as drafted only if the Home Secretary fails to adopt a recommendation of the parole board. It cannot arise the other way round because he cannot release unless the parole board so recommends. I do not see why this should not be a matter of political controversy, although not necessarily on party lines.

Mr. Grieve: I cannot follow the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) in deprecating the residual discretion which the Home Secretary reserves to himself under the new Clause even when the board has recommended the postponement or delaying of release or even, if necessary, refusing release for the short and simple reason which I attempted to give in the intervention which, somewhat reluctantly, I made in the speech of the Home Secretary.
Even after a case has passed through the local board and has been referred to the Prison Licensing Board, so that in all ordinary circumstances one would expect the Board's recommendation to be acceded to should it recommend release, circumstances may arise which make it necessary for the Home Secretary to say, "No" or to delay release for the reasons which the right hon. Gentleman gave. Such circumstances must be extremely rare. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) said, they will be such that the Home Secretary will doubtless have to answer to the House of Commons for them. But it is abundantly plain and right that the Home Secretary should have such a reserve discretion.
I should like to express my gratitude to the Government for the way in which they have dealt with the considerations which were put forward by both sides of the Committee. The proposed new scheme, which meets all, or nearly all, the considerations which were put to the Government—no system can be devised which is perfect—will, I hope, provide a first-class parole system and first-class machinery for putting parole into operation.
5.30 p.m.
I ask the Home Secretary to consider the Amendment of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) and others of my hon. Friends in suggesting that the Board should be presided over by someone who has held high judicial office. I agree with the Home Secretary that this would limit the field for selection. I agree that there are considerable calls upon judicial time. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, however, there are many persons who have held high judicial office who are not now active as judges, and appointment would be clearly open to them. I am sure that there would be many who, in the conscientious desire to serve the public which they retain, would be willing to serve in this capacity.
The reason why I consider it important to have a high judicial officer in that sense on the Board is that this would give the Board prestige and authority in the eyes of the public. The judiciary enjoys the highest public regard and esteem. We know that the members of the judiciary are chosen with the greatest care. That is not to say that there are not sometimes bad judges, but, perhaps, a bad judge would not be selected to preside over the Board. The judiciary is deserving of the prestige in which it is held. I believe that it would be right from the public point of view and in ensuring the good working of the system that the Board should be presided over by somebody who has held high judicial office.
I ask the Home Secretary to reconsider his attitude towards the Amendment.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I welcome the new Clause and the treatment of the matter of the proposed Prison Licensing Board. Indeed, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on his treatment of the whole subject. It is evident to anyone who reads the Clause that a great deal of careful thought and analysis has gone into it. If the disposition of my right hon. Friend is exemplified in any one provision of new Clause 6, it is, perhaps, in the welcome provision, which the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) and a number of hon. Members opposite desire to amend, that in any case in which
the Board thinks it necessary to interview the person…the Board may request one

of its members to interview him and shall take into account the report of that interview by that member".
In, perhaps, a comparatively small way, that seems to me to introduce an element of wholly welcome humanity into this procedure. It is always a welcome matter if the consequence of so treating an issue is entirely without detriment to the public interest, as is the case in this instance.
I await the argument in favour of the Amendment to that part of the Clause and I shall listen to it with great care. That kind of interview, however, would be much better conducted from every point of view in circumstances which would reduce as far as practicable the element of strain and awkwardness affecting the prisoner. That is what is provided for, and rightly so, in the new Clause. It is rather revealing as to the type of mind and disposition that have gone into the working out of the Clause. For my part, it is wholly welcome.
I am also pleased by the decisions arrived at concerning the composition of the Board. I listened to the argument of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone in favour of inserting "high" before "judicial office" in the new Schedule, but that would seem to me possibly to introduce an ambiguity without any great advantage. It might be for some of us an agreeable occasion if we were arguing before a judge of the Court of Appeal, the High Court, or some other court the proper interpretation of the term "high judicial office". It is a matter which, if the Amendment were passed, might come fairly quickly before the courts for interpretation.

Mr. Hogg: Perhaps the hon. and learned Member is not aware that that phrase already occurs in more than one statute.

Mr. Irvine: I am well aware of that, but that is no reason why there cannot be further argument upon it. Doubt has been expressed in the House about the effect of the Amendment. One must be very satisfied with the advantages ataching to a form of words about which those who propose them have doubt as to their meaning. That is what we are confronted with in this instance. It is a matter on which different views can be taken, but I am doubtful whether any practical value


would result from acceptance of the Amendment.
I might have had doubt about paragraph 1(b) of the new Schedule, which provides that one of the members of the Prison Licensing Board must be
a registered medical practitioner who is a psychiatrist".
I do not know that "psychiatrist" is any more difficult or easy to define than "high judicial office". Presumably, it means somebody who is qualified in the science, if it is a science, of psychiatry or in that department of medicine. The view could be taken that this definition narrowed, possibly undesirably, the field of selection among doctors and registered men for eligibility for membership of the Board.
That is admittedly a rather small matter, however, and I emphasise that I welcome the treatment of this extremely important matter in the Bill and in the new Clause.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: I hope that the Home Secretary will say a word about recall because the machinery for this will be important. In places where a parole board has been established, this has been found to be among the most difficult and delicate parts of its functions and I imagine that the Home Secretary has in mind changes in Clause 42. Otherwise, I join the welcome which has been given to this proposal. The Home Secretary certainly has been good to his word on Second Reading.
I do not, however, overrate what the right hon. Gentleman has done. My rapture is a little modified by some of the limitations which he has imposed upon the proposed body. It is a very cautious start and I am inclined to think that the Home Secretary intends, no doubt for his own good reasons, to make this body a little less prestigious—I will not say powerful—than some of us originally hoped that it might become.
I should like to recall why some of us felt from the start that a body such as this was important. Under the terms of the Bill great powers of release will repose in the Home Department. Notwithstanding these arrangements, these great powers still remain with the Department. To the extent that the Home Secretary has stopped short of giving this Board mandatory powers, its powers are to that extent limited. I agree with the right hon.

Gentleman that it would be a pity if there was a conflict between the prison department and the Board, and one can well see the danger of this. At the same time the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that in other pdaces where these bodies are working satisfactorily the parole board and the prison department work almost as co-equals and they do not conflict.
As I see it this will remain very much an advisory body. There is a point at which the Home Secretary cannot reject the advice that is given, but it will remain an advisory body, and I foresee anxiety by the Department lest this body becomes any stronger or more prestigious as time goes on. I think that this is almost inevitable. I hope that we may consider this not to be the last word and that if it proves a success, as I hope it will, we shall have the courage to take it a little further and add a mandatory power which some of us would have liked to have seen from the start.

Mr. Carlisle: Like the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman), I believe that these new Clauses are a major improvement to the Bill. As a Member of the Committee, I welcome them, and I thank the Home Secretary for what is generally accepted as a massive concession.
The reason why I think the parole board is most important is because I want to see the idea of releasing prisoners on licence work, and if it is going to work it is essential that it should have the support and confidence of the public. I believe that the existence of an impartial parole board will give the public the feeling that their interests are being safeguarded, that their interests are being considered, when the question of release arises, rather than feeling that the Home Office has an opportunity of using it merely for administrative convenience.
It is for that reason, too, that I attach a good deal of importance to the Amendment to bring in the word "high" before "judicial office". I believe that if this Board is to be respected it is important that those who are on it are people who are respected by the public. I think that this Board will have an important job to do, and I hope that the standing of the judicial member of the Board will always be the equivalent of a person who either is, or has been, a high court judge.
The Home Secretary said that he had in mind someone in the position of a recorder or chairman of quarter sessions. I would remind him that there are some counties in which the chairman of quarter sessions is not even a qualified person, or was not until recently, and the phrase "judicial office", although the right hon. Gentleman may have in mind a recorder or chairman of quarter sessions, would cover many people who during their time had had no experience in trying criminal work. I believe that this term is too wide, and should be limited by the intrusion of the word "high" to ensure that the importance of the Board is recognised from the outset.
5.45 p.m.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he had not said anything about recall. I would remind him that he said that one of his criticisms of the original proposals from this side of the House about the parole board was that they were too judicial, and that the release of prisoners was no a judicial matter. One accepts the strength of what the right hon. Gentleman said, but I suggest that the recall of prisoners is very much a judicial matter, and for the person who is being recalled it will be the equivalent of being sentenced to imprisonment again.
If that is so, it is important to see what the powers are with regard to recall. Whereas the Home Secretary has given the Board mandatory powers of release, he has not given it mandatory powers of recall. I should have thought that it was the recall side which was more important, and if the Board recommends that a person should be recalled, the Home Secretary should not have a discretion on that recommendation, but should recall him.
The Home Secretary might consider that the Parliamentary pressure argument is likely to be far stronger in the case of recall than in regard to release, because if it is known that despite the recommendation of the Board that a person should be recalled the Home Secretary has a discretion to ignore that recommendation, I would have thought that much more Parliamentary pressure might be brought to bear on him to persuade him to use his discretion. I hope, therefore, that on consideration of the recall powers

of the Board he will accept that once the matter has been referred to the Board—and the matter has to be referred to the Board before it can recall—if it recommends recall the Home Secretary should carry out that recommendation.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: The hon. Gentleman said, and I agree with him, that if the new procedure in our criminal law is to get off to a proper start it should have as wide a measure of public approval as we can get for it. I ask him to consider whether we are likely to get a wide measure of public approval for the proposal that if the Board recommends recall that is mandatory, but if it recommends release that is not? Does he really think that the public would accept that?

Mr. Carlisle: I am saying that if the Board recommends recall that should be mandatory, and that this is more important than the mandatory power which exists in the release whereby the Home Secretary cannot release unless the Board recommends it. It is because I want public opinion to support the Board and these proposals that I think this is important. If the public feel that although the Board has been set up, and although it may recommend recall, the Home Secretary may overrule it, their faith and confidence in the Board may be affected.
Is the Home Secretary entirely happy about the accused having only a right of written representation on recall? Presumably he hopes that the powers to recall will not often be used, but I think that he ought to consider widening this to give power to a person to be heard either in person or by being represented when the recall is proposed in view of the fact that to that person it is like being sentenced to prison again.
I propose, finally, to consider the Amendment to insert the words "shall do so". With respect to the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine), there is no ulterior motive behind the Amendment. If the Board decides that a person should be interviewed, it should not then decide whether, having considered it is necessary, it will or will not do it. Having considered it is necessary, the Board should do it, and this is what the Amendment says.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the effect of the Amendment would be that the whole board could interview the prisoner?

Mr. Carlisle: That could be so. That is not unreasonable, because most of these people will have been seen originally by a member of the review committee. That member will have made a recommendation. If the board then still feels that it should see the person it is not unreasonable for the whole Board to do so. If that state of quandary exists it is better that the whole Board should see a person rather than that one member should be delegated to do so.
The Home Secretary has pointed out that it is not to be thought that release will be automatic. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will repeat that warning today, because it would be unfortunate if the idea got about that people serving long terms of imprisonment could automatically expect to be released. Although we hope that the powers will be used with compassion they are likely to be the exception rather than the general rule.

Sir D. Renton: Ever since the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) introduced the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Bill hon. Members on this side of the House have been unanimously in favour of some kind of parole board. That is why we appreciate the way in which the Home Secretary has handled the matter. If we were not to have a judicial board, it was right that we should have an advisory board, without mandatory powers.
I do not agree with the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne about the Home Secretary's not being answerable to the House in the last resort. He is responsible for the prison system and he must be responsible in detail, up to a point, as well as in general. The right hon. Gentleman has shown commendable open-mindedness about the broad principles of the question, and I hope that in the light of the discussion that we have had he will continue to show the same open-mindedness in respect of some of the detail which is covered largely by Amendments, although there are one or two other points which are not covered by Amendments.
We find that we shall have to wait to see the rules before we know the exact

functions of local review committees. I do not ask for a preview of the rules, but it would be helpful if the right hon. Gentleman could give us some idea whether all the eligible cases—as I must call them—will be considered as a matter of routine by local review committees, or whether it is proposed that only selected cases should be put before them.
In respect of my Amendment to new Clause 6, I wish to add only that it is important to bear in mind the feelings of the men whose cases are being considered by the Prison Licensing Board. In a doubtful case—and the Board will have interviews only in doubtful cases —prisoners may think that they should have the right to be heard. It will give them far more satisfaction to be heard by the whole Board than by a deputed member. Members of the Board are bound to vary in their reactions when interviewing prisoners, and I would have thought it better, in this relatively small number of cases—it is not likely that there will be very many—for the man concerned to go before the whole Board.
The Home Secretary referred to a point covered by the Amendment to new Clause 7, concerning the stage at which the Home Secretary should ask the Lord Chief Justice and the trial judge, if available, for an opinion. The Home Secretary has anticipated the argument underlying the Amendment by saying that if he felt like it he would obtain the opinion of the Lord Chief Justice and the trial judge before referring the matter to the parole board. I would have thought it much better to make this the practice in all cases. Not only will it make for greater consistency—which might not be a bad thing; it will be of great value to the parole board to have the opinion of the Lord Chief Justice and the trial judge, because the board's recommendation might very well be different from what it would have been if it had not had that opinion, and the Home Secretary would value the advice of the board much more if it had had the opinion of those judges first.
I implore the Home Secretary to bear in mind the fact that great public anxiety has been aroused—sometimes justified and sometimes not—about the possibility of prisoners being released before they should be. That anxiety can be allayed by ensuring that in all cases the parole


board has the opinion of the Lord Chief Justice and the trial judge, if available. It can also be allayed by meeting the point made by all my hon. and right hon. Friends who have so far spoken on the Amendment to the new Schedule.
It would be regarded by the public as unsatisfactory if the judicial member of the board were merely—as he could be—an ex-deputy chairman of quarter sessions.

Mr. Weitzman: Supposing he were a Chancery judge? He would have had no experience of criminal cases.

Sir D. Renton: It is true that some Chancery judges have had no experience of criminal cases, but others function as chairmen of quarter sessions. I know of one who sat in that capacity. We could surely take it that all judges of the High Court, because of the standing they have in the judiciary and the breadth of their experience, are likely to give greater public satisfaction than some of the ex-deputy chairmen of quarter sessions who would be eligible and might conceivably be thought by the Home Secretary to be suitable.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I hope that the right hon. and learned Member is aware of the fact that before the present Lord Chief Justice was appointed he had had no experience of criminal law.

Sir D. Renton: That has not prevented his being a very fine Lord Chief Justice. The present Master of the Rolls, head of the Chancery Division, had great experience of the criminal law before becoming Master of the Rolls. We should aim high in this matter. It would give much greater satisfaction to the public.
The object of the parole board is twofold. It is to ensure that our prison system is justly administered and is seen to be justly administered, but it also has the purpose of assuring the public that men are not let out of prison when they might continue to be a risk to the public.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I am most grateful to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House for the general welcome which they have given to these provisions. As we have been able to arrive at an agreed scheme, which means that the Government have moved sub-

stantially, although rightly, I think, I hope the House will acquit me of being unduly stubborn—I am not sure whether that was the right hon. and learned Gentleman's word—if I do not feel able to accede to some of the Amendments which have been so persuasively urged in the course of this discussion.
I want first to deal with some of the maters mentioned by the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) and then come to what appear to me to be the three main points which have emerged from the discussion. The, first of these concerns recall—and I apologise to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) for not having dealt with this in my opening speech and I will therefore endeavour to do so in my closing speech. There is, secondly, the point about the absence of the mandatory provision for release, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) drew attention and, thirdly, there is that about high judicial office, first raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire and then taken up by others.
The hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) invited me to repeat a view which I expressed in Committee and which was that it would be a mistake if prisoners were to assume that these provisions meant that all, or anything like all, long-term prisoners would get out after a short period of their sentence. This is to be a substantial scheme, but it would be wrong if people began to think that a long sentence meant one-third of that sentence and no more than that. That is exemplified by the fact that, as I indicated to the House, in my view the board will be considering about 750 to 1,000 cases a year and not recommending release in all, whereas the total number of cases eligible in any year would be in excess of 4,000. That gives some indication of the position.
I turn to the Amendment in the names of the hon. Member for Runcorn and the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire which would make it obligatory for all members of the Board to see a prisoner. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) that this would not be right. There is nothing in the argument about "shall" rather than


"may", because if the Board wishes to do something, presumably it will. There are not two parties to this matter. What the Bill suggests would also be a more satisfactory procedure for interviewing.
Of course it would be satisfactory to the prisoner if he were brought before the Board and received the result which he wanted, but if he did not, there would be a great build up and then a great let down and a great sense of unsettlement. Nor do I think that it would be practicable to do what is suggested other than by bringing very large numbers of prisoners to London for special interviews, or by having the Board go round the prisons, rather like a touring Assize. There would he great disadvantages about that and I am assured by the experience of other countries that where this happens, where there is this build up of expectation in prison and where many are then disappointed, the atmosphere which is left afterwards is an extremely difficult atmosphere with which to deal. I believe that what we are proposing is more desirable.

Sir D. Renton: The right hon. Gentleman says that very large numbers of people would have to be brought to London, but by the time the sifting process had been carried out by the review committees and bearing in mind that it would he in the doubtful or marginal cases only that the Board would think it necessary to have an interview, would it really be such a large number?

Mr. Jenkins: If there were to be that kind of process, prisoners might take the view that they were entitled to an interview and a general pressure for general interviews would build up, and if 750 or 1,000 prisoners a year had to be brought to London, I would regard that as being a large number of prisoners to be transported about the country.
I turn to the first of the three main points with which I wish to deal. This concerns recall. Perhaps I can deal with this by way of explanation as well as by way of reply, as I did not deal with it in my opening speech. Amendment No. 48 leaves the present recall powers of the existing legislation on life licences. The new subsections provide a recall code for both fixed term prisoners and life prisoners. The Secretary of State may

recall a licensee if the Licensing Board recommends him to do so. The hon. Member for Runcorn took issue about this and thought that this provision should be mandatory and my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne did not like this provision. I can give an example to explain why we do not think that it should be made mandatory, although in practice, to all intents and purposes, it will be.
Supposing circumstances arise in which the Board has evidence put before it that the prisoner who has been released on licence has not been observing the terms of his licence, and it decides therefore to recall him; supposing we then proceed to start to do that, but, in the course of doing so, discover that there has been a mistake, that the licensee has been in perfectly honest employment and has been trying to get in touch with his probation officer, but for some reason has failed to do so; clearly, in those circumstances one would not wish him to be brought back to gaol and there would have to be a discretion to put the matter to the Board. If it were absolutely mandatory, once the process had been started, it could not be stopped without the prisoner having a few days or a few weeks back in gaol, which might be extremely undesirable and unsettling if things had been going well for him.

Mr. Sharples: The right hon. Gentleman spoke of evidence being put before the Board. What I am not clear about is how the evidence first comes to be brought before the Board. What is the machinery by which the prisoner's name is put forward for the Board to consider recall?

Mr. Jenkins: I will endeavour to explain that. It falls under two headings, urgent and non-urgent cases. The urgent cases are those where it is
expedient in the public interest to recall that person before such consultation"—
with the Board—
is practicable".
The Secretary of State may recall a licensee without consulting the Board, although when the licensee is back in prison, the Home Secretary must refer the case to the Board.
I am sure that the House will take the view that it is necessary to have this special, urgent, provision connected with


the right of recall without waiting for a hearing by the Board. If a prisoner who had committed, perhaps a long time before, some serious offence was seen in similar circumstances with grave suspicions that he might commit a similar offence, it would be no good waiting for the Board—which might sit five days a month—to make a decision before bringing him back and preventing him from committing a crime which might do grave damage to individuals, to the public confidence and to his whole prospects for the future. It would be quite wrong not to have this over-riding right where there was a suspicion that something sudden and rather desperate might happen.
In the majority of cases, where the decision was not urgent, the matter would be put to the Board which would recommend recall. That would arise when reports had been received, as they generally are, about someone on licence from those supervising him, or from the police, when, if the reports were unsatisfactory, it would be the duty of the Secretary of State to refer the matter to the Board. But a person might be picked up and brought before a court on some other offence. That would then be made known to the Board and it would be for the Board to consider whether in those circumstances he should be recalled from licence on parole.

Mr. Carlisle: Am I not right in saying that the powers still exist in the Bill for the court to revoke the licence of a person convicted before quarter sessions or Assizes, or would the court now automatically have to send the case to the parole board?

Mr. Jenkins: The court would have the power to act in that way without sending the case to the parole board. In non-urgent and urgent circumstances alike —[Interruption]. I am glad that the House is impressed by the unanimity and decisiveness of my advice on that important point—if the Board recommends immediate re-release on considering an urgent case for the first time or a non-urgent one for the second time, on account of the representations, the Secretary of State must give effect to that recommendation.
In such a case, the further release of a life-sentence man would not be subject to consultation with the Lord Chief Jus-

Lice or the trial judge, since the Board's recommendation would be binding. This would apply if we had decided to bring him in and the Board took the view that that would be unjustifiable, or when representations to recall him had been made before the Board and rejected. These are the main provisions for recall.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne, was a little too suspicious. I have no desire to put a fresh obstacle in the way of a prisoner being released and I do not believe that any Home Secretary would be in a tenanble position if he held up a release for more than a short period. Equally, however, it would be very difficult to draft a provision to give us this discretion, which I regard as absolutely essential if this parole system is to work properly and one is to have regard to when the man comes out and his future prospects.
Therefore, this discretionary power of "may" release, which is intended to allow elbow room over time and circumstances—and nothing else—is the best we can do. From this point of view, I hope that my hon. Friend and the House will accept my assurance as to how I think it will work—

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I have no doubt that, in working out the compromise, which we all welcome and think a wise and generous one for the most part, my right hon. Friend has studied the systems in other countries. Has any other country a parole system administered by a parole board in which the executive retains any rights not to accept its advice?

Mr. Jenkins: I studied the position in other countries before deciding what would best suit our circumstances, but, although other countries have done interesting experiments with parole boards, not all, by any means, have succeeded in finding the ideal solution. Many have worked with considerable friction with the judiciary and with the prison department or its equivalent.
The point which ran through the discussion was the question of high judicial office. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill, said that the term was ambiguous, which is perhaps an argument against putting it in the Bill, but would not be my main


argument. The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) said that there were recorders and recorders. My impression is that there are also judges and judges and one could not necessarily get around this difficulty.
I did not understand why those urging the Amendment should think that if one were allowed to appoint someone with judicial but not specifically high judicial office, a Home Secretary would be assumed to go out of his way to make almost the most foolish appointment possible and to choose some superannuated deputy chairman of quarter sessions with no experience of the matters with which he is concerned and who commanded no respect in the profession or anywhere else, and that if he was instructed to appoint someone with high judicial office, he would act with good sense and exclude all Chancery judges or anyone else who was not suitable—

Mr. Hogg: I am not sure that there is an intermediary position. In his original speech the right hon. Gentleman seemed to say brazenly that he would not have a High Court judge at any price but would choose someone simply because he had a lower position. That seems to be exactly his intention.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Jenkins: If I gave that impression, then I expressed myself with less than the required lucidity. I do not specifically intend to exclude a High Court judge or someone who had been a High Court judge, or possibly had held higher office but I do not think it desirable to be so bound, but would regard it as overwhelmingly desirable to get someone who commanded high respect in the legal profession and generally. I think that that would certainly be the view of any Home Secretary. I would ask to be allowed the discretion to do this, without necessarily having to have someone who had been a Queen's Bench Judge.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman explained engagingly that some of his Divisions should be regarded not so mach as expressions of opinion but as attendance records and if he wishes to record attendance on this, I do not complain and am grateful to him and the House for their general reception of the proposal.

Mr. Hogg: On a point of order. I understood from Mr. Deputy Speaker, when he was in the Chair, that two of my Amendments would rank for a Division if I proposed to move them formally, but I am not sure when I would be in order in doing so.

Mr. Speaker: It depends on where they are.

Mr. Hogg: I proposed to move formally for Division, when reached, the Amendment at the top of page 7578, to the Government's new Schedule, No. 60. It is the one which the right hon. Gentleman himself invited me to do in the end of his speech. I had originally intended, but do not now, to move formally the one on page 7575, to the Government Amendment, No. 48.

Mr. Speaker: The Amendment on page 7578 to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred, he will move formally when we reach the debate on the new Schedule. I understand that he will not move the other?

Mr. Hogg: No, Sir.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause No. 7.—(RELEASE ON LICENCE OF PERSONS SENTENCED TO IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE, ETC.)

(1) The Secretary of State may, if recommended to do so by the Prison Licensing Board, release on licence a person serving a sentence of imprisonment for life or a person detained under section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (young offenders convicted of grave crimes), but shall not do so in the case of a person sentenced to imprisonment for life or to detention during Her Majesty's pleasure or for life except after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice of England together with the trial judge if available.

(2) Subsections (3) and (3A) of section 41 of this Act shall apply in relation to a licence under this section as they apply in relation to a licence under that section.

(3) A licence granted under this section to any person sentenced under section 53(2) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 to be detained otherwise than for life shall, unless previously revoked under section 42 of this Act, remain in force until a date specified in the licence, being the date of the expiration of the sentence.—[Mr. Roy Jenkins.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause No. 8.—(FALSE WRITTEN STATEMENTS TENDERED IN EVIDENCE.)

(1) If any person in a written statement tendered in evidence in criminal proceedings by virtue of section 2 or 7 of this Act wilfully makes a statement material in those proceedings which he knows to be false or does not believe to be true, he shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine or both.

(2) The Perjury Act 1911 shall have effect as if this section were contained in that Act.—[Mr. Taverne.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Taverne: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that we are to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 57, in page 49, line 40, to leave out Clause 64.

Mr. Taverne: The new Clause and the Amendment concern an undertaking given in Committee to reconsider the penalty for making a false statement tendered in evidence under Clause 2 or Clause 7. This was reconsidered by the Government and we decided to reduce the maximum sentence to two years. As the offence is one of giving false evidence in judicial proceedings, it should be considered as akin to perjury, but as it will not concern statements on solemn oath in court, it also seemed right not to make the penalty seven years.
As it was intended to keep the offence akin to perjury, subsection (1) reflects the wording of Section 1 of the Perjury Act, 1911, in that it is an offence for a witness wilfully to make a statement material in those proceedings which he knows to be false or does not believe to be true. Subsection (2) makes the offence one under the Perjury Act, and thus attracting the ancillary provisions of the Act which deal with such offences.
For example, the requirement of Section 13 for evidence of corroboration will apply to the new offence. The evidence of at least two witnesses as to the falsity of a written statement will be a prerequisite of a conviction.

Mr. Hogg: I am grateful for this Clause, which is the result of a concession to a view which I expressed in Committee. I hope that it will not seem ungrateful if I ask one further question.
It seems desirable to bring to the notice of the maker of a statement at the time he makes it the danger that he may be prosecuted under the Perjury Act for the new offence. It is most unusual in the criminal law to make such an action an offence not at the time that it is committed but only contingently, if somthing happens later over which the person concerned has no direct control. This will become an offence not if a wilful wrong statement is made by someone to the police but only contingently, if, for reasons which the maker of the statement could not control, it is used as a statement in criminal proceedings in lieu of evidence.
It is, therefore, desirable, if this new offence is to be created—I accept that it is a necessary improvement to the Bill—and the police intend to use a statement in the way which the Bill permits, that they should, as a matter of routine, begin the statement with some such words as:
I fully understand that this statement may be used in judicial proceedings as evidence and that, if so, I shall be liable to the penalties of the Perjury Act.
This may be said to put too great a burden on the police, but there is nothing in that argument. The police are constantly familiar with taking statements from potentially accused persons and it is as a matter of absolute precaution, to defend themselves, that they cause certain ritual words to be inserted at the beginning and end of every statement for the accused to sign. There is no harm in requiring them to do so for potential witnesses if they have it in mind to use their statements as written evidence.

Sir D. Renton: I am profoundly unhappy about this matter, not only for the reasons given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), but also because of the practice which now prevails when statements are given to the police and because it will obviously have to continue.
A case came to my knowledge recently of a woman who was asked to go to a police station at 3 o'clock in the morning—when she was already very tired—because her husband had been stabbed in the street by another man. The police asked her to make a statement, which, as it happened, contained a number of inaccuracies. It seemed right to the police to write it down. Because it contained inaccuracies, that woman, under


the Bill, will render herself liable to two years' imprisonment, and I cannot believe that this is right.
The hon. and learned Gentleman may say that these matters will be carefully considered before being put in evidence and that it is only if they are tendered at the new type of committal proceedings that she will become liable. But it is a position which we should not have reached. I welcome the improved proceedings, but I wonder whether some further thought could be given to this matter. We are exposing people to too drastic a penalty—people who might not have intended to make a false statement but who, perhaps through nervousness, tiredness, or the importance of the occasion, have become led into such a position.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Taverne: I agree that the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) has made an important point, although I suggest that it is substantially met in the Bill as it stands. Clause 2(2,b) refers to a statement containing
…a declaration by that person to the effect that it is true to the best of his knowledge and belief and that he made the statement knowing that if it were tendered in evidence, he would be liable to prosecution if he wilfully stated in it anything which he knew to be false or did not believe to be true".
It would, therefore, have to be a wilful statement and not an accidental one. Attention would have to be drawn to the fact that the person was liable to prosecution.

Sir John Hobson: All these matters having been drawn to the attention of the person concerned, why should that person not then commit a criminal offence?

Mr. Taverne: This point was argued in Committee, when it was pointed out that one wanted to make this as akin as possible to perjury. It was also pointed out that there would not be an opportunity to withdraw. In fact, there might well be pressure on people not to change their statements before the trial. Those objections were raised and I accept that they still stand, but they are not the subject matter of the new Clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause No. 9.—(ENTRY OF VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY BY ORDER OF A JUDGE.)

Where a defendant arraigned on an indictment or inquisition pleads not guilty and the prosecutor proposes to offer no evidence against him, the court before which the defendant is arraigned may, if it thinks fit, order that a verdict of not guilty shall be recorded without the defendant being given in charge to a jury, and the verdict shall have the same effect as if the defendant had been tried and acquitted on the verdict of a jury.—[Mr. Taverne.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Taverne: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This is yet a further new Clause tabled by the Government as a result of suggestions made in Committee. On this occasion it results from a new Clause which was tabled at that stage by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon).
There were certain practical objections on that occasion, but the Committee was not greatly impressed by the need to consider those objections as overriding the principle set out in the Clause moved by my hon. Friend. As a result, this Clause has been drafted and I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that it meets the practical objections that were put forward. It also promotes the principle which my hon. Friend sought to advance, and it should help considerably in certain cases to remove inconvenience.
The Clause means that without the formality of putting the defendant in charge of a jury, a judge can bring in a verdict of not guilty. I hope that my hon. Friend will find this proposal satisfactory and, once again, I express my gratitude to him for having made the suggestion in Committee.

Mr. Grieve: There is not a court in the country which will not find itself indebted to the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) for having first raised this matter, and to the Government for having given effect to the proposal, albeit in slightly different language. It has been a gross inconvenience and an inordinate time waster in my experience at assizes and quarter sessions to have to empanel a jury to


return a verdict of not guilty in cases where the prosecution has not offered any evidence. This Clause will save a great deal of time and our thanks are due to the hon. Member for York.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Amen and hallelujah. That is all I have to say on this subject, and this must be one of the shortest speeches on record.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause No. 11.—(SOCIAL INQUIRY REPORT BEFORE SENTENCE.)

(1) The Secretary of State may by rules make provision requiring that in any case to which the rules apply a court of any prescribed class shall before passing on any person a sentence to which the rules apply consider a social inquiry report, that is to say a report about h m and his circumstances, made by a probation officer or any other person authorised to do so by the rules.

(2) Rules under this section may apply to a sentence of imprisonment or detention of any class prescribed by the rules and may make different provision for different cases.

(3) In this section 'sentence of imprisonment or detention' means a sentence of imprisonment, borstal training or detention in a detention centre or a sentence of detention passed under section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (young offenders convicted of grave crimes.)—[Miss Bacon.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Miss Bacon: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
In Committee the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) moved a new Clause to prohibit courts from passing a custodial sentence on a person who had not previously served, and was not serving, a sentence of imprisonment or borstal training unless the court had considered a probation officer's report.
On that occasion the Home Secretary expressed general sympathy with the object of the new Clause and undertook to have consultations with the National Association of Probation Officers to see what was practicable. In withdrawing his new Clause, the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that a regulatory power could be given to the Home Secretary to prescribe classes of persons on whom a report should be made so that

the scheme could be extended by steps. The Government have come to the conclusion that it would be right to take power to require courts to obtain reports in certain circumstances before passing a custodial sentence.
The present arrangements for providing courts with reports in general work well and, in general, courts ensure that they are provided with the necessary information about an offender before passing sentence. This practice, although general, is not universal and in a small number of cases it happens that a court passes a custodial sentence without obtaining the reports necessary to enable it to form a proper judgment.
The Clause gives a wide rule-making power to the Home Secretary and it enables him to make provision for different kinds of sentence, for different classes of court and for different kinds of offender. The new requirement could thus be applied at first to a limited number of categories, and could be extended, if it seemed desirable, in the light of experience. Once the rule-making power exists, it might not, in fact, be necessary to exercise it because, with the power in reserve, the Home Secretary might be able to achieve the desired result by the issue of circulars to courts. This possibility will be borne in mind when the Bill becomes law. The National Association of Probation Officers has been consulted and is in favour of a provision on the lines of the new Clause.

Sir J. Hobson: I offer my thanks to the Government for the way in which this matter has been dealt with and express my pleasure at the fact that it has been possible to find a solution which the Government think is satisfactory and which is acceptable to the probation officers as well.
I am sure that it is principally in respect of magistrates' courts that it may be necessary in future to see that justices do not pass custodial sentences without having had a proper probation officer's report, apart from the police report. I realise that the capacity to provide these depends on an expansion of the probation service. The last thing that I wish to do is to place on that service a burden which it cannot bear and it is obvious that this provision must depend to some extent on an expansion of the probation service.
Without wishing to make life more difficult for the Home Secretary, I suggest that it might be desirable to add a provision in the Lords that failure to provide such a report should not be grounds for appeal. However, having thrown out that suggestion, I wish once more to express my gratitude to the Government.

Mr. Grieve: I did not appreciate, when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) raised this matter in Committee, how necessary a provision of this kind was. My experience was largely at quarter sessions and assizes, where I had never known in recent years custodial sentences, save in the most obvious cases, being pronounced without a social security report having been obtained. I gather from what my right hon. and learned Friend said that this may not always be the case in magistrates' courts. I therefore doubly welcome the new Clause because within the last fortnight I have had a glaring example in my constituency of how necessary it is that such reports should be obtained.
In the last fortnight in my constituency, before the Solihull Justices, a young man aged 19, David Whitehouse, was sentenced to three months' detention for being drunk and disorderly, without such a report having been obtained. It would not be right for me to comment on the nature of the sentence because it may be the subject of an appeal. However, the case attracted considerable attention in the Press—rightly so because the parents of this boy were not informed of what was happening. It was not until after the sentence had been passed and the boy had been taken away that they learned anything of what had happened to their son. It was in that connection that the case was brought to my notice.
I have not yet been in touch with the Home Secretary about this matter, because I am hoping for reports from the chief constable and the probation officer, who has already written to me. It appears plain that the reason why the parents learnt nothing about this case was because no social inquiry report was obtained. Had a report been obtained in this case—and I hear from the principal probation officer that it was not—then, in the normal course of events, a probation officer would

have gone to the boy's home and made the necessary preliminary inquiries. Such inquiries were not made and one of the results was that something happened which I find absolutely shocking—this young man of 19, a minor in the eyes of the law, was sent away by the justices for three months without any inquiry having been made of his parents or of his background and without his parents being given the opportunity of going to court, as any decent parents would, and standing by their son.
It is fortuitous that this debate gives me an opportunity of raising this case. I raise it simply because it underlines the necessity for a provision of this kind and for that reason, I profoundly welcome it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause No. 10.—(CONTINUATION OF EXEMPTIONS FROM JURY SERVICE AT CRIMINAL TRIALS.)

(1) The persons to whom this section applies (being persons exempted from jury service by section 9 of the Juries Act 1870 in the case of persons mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (k) by section 4 of the Port of London Act 1959 in the case of persons mentioned in paragraph (l) and by section 43(2) of the British Transport Commission Act 1962 in the case of persons mentioned in paragraph (m) of the next following subsection) shall for ten years after the date on which they cease to hold the office or employment or practise the profession by virtue of which they are so exempt continue to enjoy the like exemption from serving on juries on criminal proceedings as they enjoy that date.

(2) The persons to whom this section shall apply are—

(a) judges;
(b) barristers at law;
(c) solicitors, and their managing clerks;
(d) the registrar of criminal appeals, clerks of assize and persons appointed or employed to assist him or them in the exercise of his or their functions;
(e) clerks of the peace and their deputies;
(f) coroners;
(g) prison officers;
(h) sheriffs officers;
(i) members of police forces and special constables for police areas;
(j) metropolitan stipendiary magistrates;
(k) justices of the peace;
(l) constables appointed by the Port of London Authority; and
(m) constables in the British Transport Police Force.—[Mr. Edward Lyons.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Edward Lyons: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This new Clause, which stands in the names of hon. Members on both sides of the House, proposes a major change in the law relating to eligibility for jury service. When the question was raised in Committee my right hon. Friend said that he would study the matter; and I hope that this proposal will, in its present form, meet with his approval.
Certain classes of person, including police officers, prison officers and lawyers, are exempt by law from jury service while they are following those occupations. However, under the law as it stands, after their retirement they can, and do, serve on juries. The Clause is designed to prevent them from doing so for a period of 10 years after their retirement. The introduction of the Clause was recommended in the Report of the Departmental Committee on Jury Service, the Morris Committee, in 1965.
In Britain we adhere to the maxim that justice should not only be done but be seen to be done and, to that end, groups of citizens who have a great deal of connection with the administration of law and justice are excluded from jury service. Their knowledge, experience and training would, at best, cause them to exercise undue influence on fellow members of the jury and, at worse, tend—perhaps in spite of themselves—to prejudice them against an accused person.
It has, however, not hitherto been recognised by Statute that the factors which make such people unfit for jury service while they are practising in those occupations and professions persist after their retirement. The loyalty of ex-police officers to their colleagues remains for years. They may tend to be uncritical of police evidence. Their knowledge of an accused man's record remains. Instead of seeing themselves as impartial arbiters, they may see themselves as protagonists for the prosecution. All this is perfectly natural, and no criticism of the police is intended. None the less, those matters unfit them to sit on a jury until such time as their knowledge fades and old habits of mind alter.
Ten years was the period recommended by the Morris Committee, and it seems that perpetual disqualification would have the unfortunate affect of barring for life people who, perhaps, for only a short

period in their twenties, served in the prison service or the police force or in some other of the listed activities. Those supporting this reform have therefore come down against perpetual disqualification.

Mr. Carlisle: Having moved in the Committeeé thé Amendment which, I think, gave rise to the new Clause, I want to associate myself with the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. Edward Lyons) and to thank the Home Office for suggesting a Clause in a form of drafting that may well be acceptable.
Having read the Clause, I am reminded of the phrase used in Committee by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) in connection with another matter, when he said that he and the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) had produced a mouse and the Home Office had come along and produced a mountain out of the mouse.
I cannot help feeling that something similar has happened here, because the new Clause started as a humble Amendment asking that any police officer who had been in the police force for at least 12 months should be excluded from jury service. Instead, we now have a vast schedule which covers the hon. Member for Bradford, East, the hon. Member for York, myself and practically every one else sitting in the Chamber now, even if we were to give up our present professions.
It is right that those who through their previous work have knowledge of the workings of the criminal law—who, for example, have a knowledge of previous offences of an accused person—should be excluded from jury service for the period suggested. I thank the Home Secretary for his assistance, and I hope that he will be able to welcome the new Clause.

Mr. Clegg: I only want to add very shortly to what has been said by the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. Edward Lyons) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle). This Clause will make the jury system stronger, and will be of advantage when we debate another matter later. It will also preserve the lay character of the jury, which is very important. For those reasons I support the Clause.

Mr. Charles Doughty: While I agree with everything that has been said so far, there is one practical difficulty which perhaps the Home Secretary can clear up. A great many people join the police force and, not finding it to their liking, leave it. A great many people who join the legal professions, perhaps do not make a success, or find another appointment. The Clause would disqualify them from jury service for 10 years—and I use the word "disqualify" deliberately because it may not be the word used in the Clause.
Eight or nine years after leaving one of the listed professions they might be on a jury and find the accused person guilty. An assiduous person looking up the records could discover this, and a long and perhaps expensive trial might be invalidated and the sentence quashed on the grounds that the jury was wrongly empanelled. If I am wrong, I will gladly withdraw my objection, but if I am right I see practical difficulties in adopting the Clause.
The young barrister who practises for a few months in chambers, or the young solicitor who may practise for just a short time is disqualified for 10 years from sitting on a jury. By that time he may be in a quite different occupation—a salesman, a shop assistant, or whatever it may be. He is summoned to jury service, the jury convicts, and away the case goes to the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division on the grounds of conviction by a jury not properly empanelled because at least one person on it, perhaps more, was not qualified under this Clause to sit. The appellant says, "As I was convicted by a disqualified jury, I ask that my conviction should be quashed."

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I am happy to say that I believe the fears of the hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) are unfounded. This Clause does not disqualify these categories of people, it exempts them. Therefore, should they by inadvertence serve on a jury it would not mean that the trial was nul and void and had to be gone through again.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for moving the Clause and for the support it has received from the other side of the Chamber. The provision is reasonable.

I do not think that we would have been very happy to put criminals on one side and police on the other in this respect, but we have taken this exemption from the Juries Act of 1870 and put in the 10-year provision. The Government will be very happy to accept the Clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause No. 12.—(COMPENSATION FOR VICTIM.)

(1) Where as the result of any act done in respect of which an accused person has been convicted on indictment of an offence it appears to the Court that any person other than the accused (hereinafter called 'the victim') has suffered injury, loss or damage, the Court may either in addition to or in lieu of any other penalty give judgment in favour of the victim against the accused for the restoration of any property or the payment of any sum of money not exceeding the amount of the loss and such judgment shall have effect as a judgment of the High Court (or where the judgment is for less than £400 of a County Court) to the like effect, or may make a declaration of liability against the accused in favour of the victim for damages to be assessed by the High Court or the County Court for the district wherein the victim resides.

(2) In the event of such a declaration of liability or judgment being made as is described in the last preceding subsection the victim may, subject to any rules of Court made for that purpose, apply to the High Court or to the County Court for the district in which the victim resides for the registration of the judgment or declaration, the carrying out of any enquiries as to damages or accounts, or the enforcement of any judgment in the same manner as if the judgment or declaration had been obtained as the result of proceedings between the victim and the accused in that Court.

(3) Any Court awarding compensation under section (1) of this Clause may assess the sum payable on the basis of the provisions of subsections 1(1) and (4) of the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945, section 2 of the Fatal Accidents Act 1846, section 1 of the Fatal Accidents (Damages) Act 1906, section 2(3) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934 and sections 2(5) and (6) of the Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act 1948 and any Court making a declaration of liability under section (1) of this Clause may attach to such declaration an instruction that damages be assessed on the basis of the said provisions.

(4) Any Court which makes an order under subsection (1) of this section may make fulfilment of that order a condition of any order for suspended sentence under this Act or any order for probation or any order for conditional discharge.

(5) An order made under this section shall be in addition to and without derogation from any other right the victim shall have against the accused but in exercising such right credit must be given for any act done or payment made in pursuance of such an order.

(6) An accused person against whom an order has been made under this section may at any time apply to the court for revocation, or variation of the order on the ground of change of circumstances since the order was made.—[Mr. Hogg.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Hogg: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
I will move this Clause rather more shortly than its appearance would seem to deserve. I propose to make a mouse of a speech in support of a mountain of a Clause. This has been a very dearly loved project of mine for a very long time, and I have tried to press it on successive Home Secretaries in both my own party and in the party opposite, so far without success. They always express their sympathy, they always declare that there are objections—which they do not always specify—and nothing ever happens.
I fear that the present occasion will only be a reproduction in public of what I have long experienced in private. None the less, I believe that if a Clause on these lines were accepted it would be by far the most beneficial Clause in the Bill. If I may say so to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger), whose articles on this subject in The Times I have both read and admired, it seems to me that when we have passed this Bill, as we shortly shall, we shall, in the absence of a Clause of this kind, be liable to precisely the criticisms mentioned in my hon. Friend's articles. We shall not have made a fundamental change or improvement in our criminal law after all our labour.
The one thing we want to do in relation to the criminal law—and I have said this now several times in this Parliament—is to bring back the elementary principle of morality into our penal treatment as an alternative to punishment in its severer form. That elementary principle of morality is that if one has done wrong, one should try to put right the wrong one has done.
In point of fact, almost every other civilised system of jurisprudence which

is not affected by our own common law, and is not founded on our own common law, provides for this. Continental systems provide for it on a very wide scale. We, for reasons that are very largely historical, have always drawn a fundamental distinction between the right to compensation, which is usually given effect to in the civil courts, and the jurisdiction of the public to punish, to which effect is given in the criminal courts. The result is that many criminals are quite severely punished but few victims are compensated.
During the 19th century an attempt was made in various statutes to break out of this dilemma, and numerous statutes contained provisions for compensation of victims. Usually they are too small in scope to be very useful and usually they are neglected almost entirely by criminal courts in practice. Many of them suffer from the additional disadvantage that if a small sum is awarded by way of compensation in the criminal court the victim is altogether prevented from exercising his remedies in the civil court, although he may have had little or no opportunity of giving the criminal court a proper estimate of what he has lost by the criminal conduct of the accused.
Of course, I do not pretend that the procedure which I have set out at some length in this Clause should be applied in accident cases under the Factories Acts or to motor accident cases, partly because the victim of negligence or breach of statutory duty is usually protected very adequately by the civil courts and partly because the interests of insurers are almost inevitably involved in both those classes of case. But I consider that in serious cases of violence and theft there should be inherent in the criminal court both a right to award compensation and a duty to inquire as to whether compensation is offered.
I think this would do very great good to the victim and also a very great service to the criminal. If it were brought to the criminal's attention at the time when he was tried for his criminal offence that there was a way out of imprisonment, an alternative, and that if he would make it clear that there was something serious he meant to do to put things right, he might get probation or a conditional discharge—I have made special provisions about this in one of the subsections—


criminal courts could avoid sending to prison people who otherwise would attract prison sentences. That, after ail, is one of the main objects of the Bill.
My principal motive in moving this new Clause, shortly as I have promised to do, is to try to make the Home Secretary admit that our present philosophy on the treatment of offenders is seriously deficient, that many of our troubles stem from this deficiency, and that we should introduce reparation as one of the principal motives underlying our treatment of serious offences.
I am, of course, aware that the Home Secretary is proposing to do something in what I believe is called the Criminal Law Bill which has been going through Parliament in the opposite direction to the Criminal Justice Bill. Whether this curious divergence of nomenclature between law and justice was intentional and designed to cast contumely on one or the other I do not know, but, having read the Criminal Law Bill, I do not think it is adequate in this respect. I should like the Home Secretary to give serious and sympathetic attention to this Clause.

Mr. Taverne: I want to speak briefly at this stage because I am somewhat surprised that the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) should move this Clause. The subject was discussed at some length in Committee when the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) moved an Amendment concerned with bankruptcy. The Home Secretary, in answer to a somewhat similar speech by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, made it quite clear that he was wholly sympathetic to the idea that some principle of reparation should be introduced into our criminal law. He said that he asked the Advisory Council on the Penal System for a report, and at the end of the debate the right hon. Gentleman said:
—as the Home Secretary has referred the matter to his advisory council, it would be prudent to await the outcome of their advice."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 22nd March, 1967; c. 1140.]
Since the question of reparation is exceedingly complex and needs to be tackled comprehensively if changes are to be made, that seems to be the course we should take. Before there can be any question of introducing legislation on

the lines proposed in this new Clause, it would be necessary to look at the whole machinery of enforcement of a civil debt and to make sure that a scheme for reparation can be effectively enforced. Before that, to do something which certainly would increase the burdens on criminal courts where there would be argument and cross-examination directed to the question of compensation, when the whole matter has been referred for a report by the Advisory Committee, would seem to raise the matter at an unfortunate stage.

Mr. T. L. Iremonger: I am surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman should be surprised that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) saw fit to put down this new Clause for discussion on Report. I should have thought that he would have realised that the object of a Report stage is to enable matters of outstanding importance to be emphasised and re-emphasised before the House as a whole, and that hon. Members who may not have been selected by the Committee of Selection to sit on a Standing Committee should have an opportunity of giving evidence of their support for a proposal which may have been discussed in the Committee but on which they have not been able to express a view.
I think it only right that an important Clause of this major dimension should be introduced for discussion on the Floor of the House. I hope that it will attract the attention that it deserves, for I think this the most important part of the Bill. I should like to see this Clause in the Bill. If it were in, it would be one thing which would make the Bill a distinctive measure of reform in the penal field.
Of course, there is a distinction between law and justice, as my right hon. and learned Friend has observed. The question was apocryphally raised by a law student when he told his tutor that he wanted justice. His tutor told him, "You should go to the divinity school over the way. This is a school of law." Justice is extraordinarily difficult to achieve by the law, but that is what this Clause is about. This Clause is about achieving justice through the criminal law. I am afraid that the public as a whole react somewhat unfavourably to


the criminal law and the administration of justice and to the penal system. They make their dissatisfaction clear by a rather inarticulate demand for punishment, but what they want is not so much punishment as a sense that wrongs are being righted.
If we had a principle of compensation and restitution of this kind, it would have an impelling sense of rightness which would command public confidence which has been largely forfeited by the penal system. This is an amazing omission from a Bill of this dimension, that the matter should not have been examined and the opportunity taken by the Home Secretary to introduce it. It is always said to be a very difficult matter. I remember that when my hon. and right hon. Friends were sitting on the other side of the House the question of compensation for victims of crimes of violence was raised and enormous difficulties were raised by the Government. It was only after years that the advice of a committee set up by the leaders of the Conservative Party, of which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Learning-ton (Sir J. Hobson) was chairman and I was a member, was taken. It was done simply by an administrative act. That process is going forward fairly satisfactorily. It was not nearly as difficult as was pretended. It was a step in the right direction.
7.0 p.m.
Although it is right that this proposal should be examined by the Home Secretary's Committee, I am sure that the difficulties are not half as bad as they are made out to be. Therefore, although it may be too much to expect the Home Secretary to say later that he has changed his mind and that this proposal will be incorporated into the Bill, I hope that it will be taken as a major criticism of the Bill that it does not incorporate any provision on these lines. I hope that we may look forward to progress in future when the Home Secretary has satisfied himself, as I air sure that he will be able to, that the difficulties are not as great as he makes out.

Dr. M. P. Winstanley: Comments have been made as to who is and who is not surprised at the appearance of the Clause on the Notice Paper. I hasten

to remove any surprise that there may be at my not having tabled a new Clause. I tabled one in Committee on very similar lines to this one. I received an answer to which I will refer later. For that reason, I decided not to pursue the matter on Report.
I am glad that the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) has tabled a Clause, which is a rather different one in certain ways from that which 1 tabled, although it aims at the same result, because it will give the Home Secretary an opportunity, which he may grasp, to decide which is the better way of doing this and to which of us he will award the golden apple, as it were. I am not saying that he will disclose the exact method to be adopted, but at least he can comment on possible ways of doing this and tell us the direction in which his mind is moving.
I am concerned, as all hon. Members will be, that we should do something soon to establish an effective and efficient system of providing compensation and adequate reparation for the victims of violent and other crimes. I was involved in this issue at the 1964 General Election, because there was then an outbreak of crime in my area. I was made very closely aware of the deficiencies in the present law regarding the victims of crime, deficiencies which the Clause seeks to rectify. I undertook to pursue the matter. Unhappily, I was not able to pursue it immediately after the 1964 General Election, but this speech can be taken, at least to some extent, as honouring an election pledge.
It is an extraordinary deficiency in the present system that people can commit crimes, can be convicted of them, and can be punished for them, although the person who has suffered cannot be effectively compensated. For cases of injury through violence, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board has been set up. We all welcome its establishment. However, nothing has been done about other forms of damage. It is the other forms of damage to which the new Clause specifically refers.
We know that the Home Secretary is sympathetic to this proposition. He said so in Committee. In reply to the new Clause—"Power of courts to make receiving order"—whose Second Reading


I then moved, the right hon. Gentleman said this:
One of the first two questions which I referred to the Advisory Council on the Penal System…is the question of reparation. I hope to have a fairly early report from that Council. It will be one of its earliest reports forthcoming. I should then wish to consider the question afresh, bearing in mind the reparation and bankruptcy aspects of the matter.
In the meantime—and I think that this is in keeping with the tenor of the hon. Gentleman's speech—he wishes us to consider the problem, to consider it with reasonable urgency and to consider it sympathetically. But I do not think that he would necessarily wish us to write the Clause into the Bill as it stands without further consideration."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 22nd March, 1967; c. 1137–8.]
We now have one stage in the possibility of further consideration, in that the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone has advanced an alternative method of providing the arrangement. The Clause I moved in Standing Committee, and which I did not press, in view of the Home Secretary's reply, very much pressed the use of bankruptcy proceedings to fill this gap in our law.
I hope that the Home Secretary will tell us which method he is leaning towards. I hope, too, that he will underline the undertaking he gave in Committee to act speedily, no matter in which direction he intends to act, when he has the information for which he is waiting. In the combating of crime generally, it is important that we make it, not only clear that crime does not pay, but manifestly clear to everybody that it is not paying. At present there is no method of ensuring that a person convicted of a crime and sentenced to imprisonment does not come out of prison and live for many years afterwards on his loot. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion and the arrangement I suggested are methods of combating a very real problem which the entire public believes should be dealt with speedily.

Mr. Rees-Davies: When the Under-Secretary said that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) was imprudent in raising this matter, I reflected that the rare occasions when my right hon. and learned Friend is imprudent are nearly always the sort of occasions which greatly endear him to us. It is that class of im-

prudence which brings forth suggestions of this character, which are precisely the sort of suggestions we want to hear.
I raised this subject in 1953, when I first entered the House. It is idle for the Home Office to say, under successive Governments and under successive Home Secretaries, that it has had no opportunity to consider this broad issue. It is plainly right that criminals must repay. That is part of the policy.
Further, criminals must pay compensation. It is said that this matter is referable back to some Committee. I greatly hope that on the Criminal Law Bill, which I have had the good fortune to look at, we shall be able to do something in this regard. I will say no more about that now, otherwise I shall be out of order.
As to criminals repaying, it is not difficult, whether in this form or in another form, to lay a Clause to provide that, in addition to a fine or coupled with the sentence of imprisonment imposed on an offender, he must, as part of his sentence, make a repayment in respect of the fruits of his crime. This would cover cases of theft, robbery and housebreaking.
It has always seemed to me that, if morality means anything in our criminal code, it must clearly mean that a man who has been found guilty of theft, housebreaking or robbery—for the moment I omit cases of violence—should have to repay, as part of his sentence, what he has stolen. The issue which then arises is—what part of that, if any, should be repaid to the victims?
There may be argument on those issues, but it does not require any further Committee, at the Home Office or elsewhere, to tell us that it is possible to include a Clause, either in this Bill or in the Criminal Law Bill, to cover that eventuality.
In 1953 or early 1954 I, together with a number of others, was asked to consider the question of compensation for victims of crimes of violence. A later Committee was set up, with which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson), my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) and others were associated. Nobody pretended that it was an easy problem. When the scheme was introduced by the right hon. Member for Hampstead, Mr. Henry Brooke, as he then was, he said that it was a very


difficult subject and that the scheme must he purely experimental. In fact, it has worked successfully. There is no real difficulty in deciding what are the appropriate cases for compensation where violence has been used. The only question has been whether, in certain cases, the person involved in the assault should or should not receive the compensation.
We could lay down a Clause providing that, when a person is found guilty of robbery with violence or of a grave assault, he shall pay, as part of the penalty, a direct financial penalty to the person who has suffered the assault. This will not only have the advantage of helping to rectify the wrong to the person who has suffered, but it will be of real benefit also to the person who has committed the offence. I beg the Home Secretary to realise—I have said this many times and I shall repeat it whenever opportunity offers—that the criminal of today is less likely to be the criminal of tomorrow if, over a period of time, week by week and month by month, he realises that he is repaying in cash for the crime which die has committed.
We are now talking of imposing substantial fines rather than sending people to prison, a course which I support, but it is, at the same time, essential to carry that through into all offences, ensuring that the criminal pays compensation in respect of the crime which he has perpetrated. He can do it by a general sum in tort, which is recognised by the common law in the assessment of damages for the assault and harm he has done. Equally, he can pay a financial penalty over a period in respect of the other aspect of it.
I had grave doubts about the provision we discussed earlier allowing the Home Secretatry to release prisoners on licence in certain circumstances when they had served one-third of their sentence. On the whole, I came to the conclusion that it was worth trying, but largely for this reason. It seemed to me that we could attach to it a scheme for repayment by the criminal and the effort to recapture the money which he had spent or salted away.
Let us suppose that a man is found guilty of breaking into a house and stealing goods to the value of £1,000. The judge comes to the conclusion that he must sentence him to 18 months' im-

prisonment, the man having been convicted, shall we say, on two previous occasions. At the same time, however, the judge recognises that the man has obtained some of the spoils. He has had the money. Perhaps he was caught a day or two after the crime. It is perfectly possible for the judge in such a case to impose a dual penalty, a fine of £500 and 18 months' imprisonment, ordering repayment of that sum. Off the man goes to prison for 18 months. After one-third of his sentence, presumably, he is entitled to be considered for parole. It might well be said, after he has served half his sentence, that parole should be exercised, but on the condition that he continues to pay the financial penalty out of his weekly wages while on licence. In that way, we should overcome the difficulty that a man when in prison cannot make a contribution. When he comes out, he can, over a period of weeks, continue to repay out of his earnings for the harm which he has done.
I could give a good many examples of the way it would work, but I shall not do so. The advantage of the so-called imprudence of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone is that it gives the Press and the public, I hope, the opportunity to carry on a debate on this matter. We are here discussing many questions of procedure, some unquestionably of great importance in our criminal justice, but the question before us now is of even greater importance. It touches on what is to be the future path which we lay in trying to prevent crime and trying to save criminals themselves, making them recognise that society is determined that they shall repay the fruits of their crimes.

7.15 p.m.

Sir John Foster: The Government's objection to this proposal is based on the ground that there ought to be a larger code of reparation. In my submission, it is possible to have a Clause on these lines which takes care of part of the problem of reparation by the criminal. In effect, the Clause, only extends, though fairly substantially, the principle of restitution.
At present, the criminal court may order a criminal to restore that part of the property which is found on him. Obviously, this is rather restricted. But it works when property is found on the


criminal. It is no objection to say, as the Under-Secretary of State did, that this proposal would greatly add to the business of the criminal courts, would take up too much time, would entail difficulties of enforcement, and so on. None of these difficulties really exists under the new Clause.
Let us assume a case in which certain property has been stolen. The court makes an order for restoration of the property. One could sue the criminal and get a judgment for that. This is a short cut to getting the judgment. The objection to incurring the expense of suing the man in the civil courts and saying, "He broke into my house and stole £1,000" is that the man has not got the money. There is no method at present whereby the criminal court could order enforcement of the judgment.
There have not been 13 wasted years on this idea. Sixty years have been wasted by all parties and all Governments. It is an idea which the Partie Civile has mooted in literature ever since the 1900s. The trouble is that all Governments, when civil servants or Ministers do not like an idea or cannot be bothered with it, refer the question to a Committee. The solution really depends on the judgment of the politicians in charge of the particular office. In this case it depends on the judgment of the Home Secretary. Ministers cannot decide how to do it. But here is a method of taking away a segment of the reparation problem. It will not overburden the time of the courts in granting a restitution order. At the end of a case, counsel will say that £1,000 was stolen—that will be in the indictment—and he wants an order for the restitution of £1,000. This would then become the judgment of the High Court.
If it is a crime of violence, the court must fix such sum as is well below—

Mr. Doughty: If several articles are stolen and hidden away overnight, is the court to set up as a valuer?

Sir J. Foster: No. The same principle would apply as in crimes of violence. The court will take the minimum which any fair-minded person would accept—there could be no objection to it—well below the maximum which could be recovered in a civil court. For example,

a man who is hit on the head might recover £2,000 damages in a civil court. In this case, the court would award £500 or £750. The House will note subsection (5), which provides that there shall be no derogation from any other right which the victim may have, and credit must be given for what is done under the order.
I ask the Home Secretary not to wait for a complete code of reparation. There are always objections to that. One must advance steadily and in segments in matters of law reform. The compensation for victims of crimes of violence was, I think, started by the organisations to which many of us on both sides of the House belong, including Justice. Those organisations put it forward. There were the usual objections on the lines of le mieux est l'enemi du bien, which is a valuable principle for Governments. The then Home Secretary said, "It is very difficult. I do not know if I can do it. There will be so many objections." But he had the courage to introduce a little of that idea. It must be improved again some day, but it is a way of moving on. I appeal to the Government to set a good example to other Governments and introduce a small segment of this method of reparation, which will have beneficial effects in the realm of penology.

Mr. Grieve: I support the proposed new Clause because I believe that it could properly be incorporated in the Bill, and not merely because it is a talking point. I wholly reject the suggestion of the Under-Secretary of State that because this matter was raised in Committee and the Government are not unfavourable—could they possibly be unfavourable to it?—we must leave it alone and not take up time with it.
The rigid separation in this country between the criminal procedure between the Crown and the subject, and the civil procedure between the criminal and his victim, is wholly anachronistic and outdated. We have a great deal to learn from those systems of continental jurisprudence where the Partie Civile, the injured person, can appear in the criminal proceedings by counsel and obtain satisfaction there.
It seems to me that our present system has no fewer than four vices or defects. First, it is bad for the administration of criminal law and for the criminal that


he should see his wrongdoing merely in the light of what he has done to society. As often as not he has done harm and grave injury to an individual who should be compensated. The new Clause goes far towards providing that compensation, which should be forthcoming where a man is found guilty of a crime. It would go a long way providing alternatives to the penalty of imprisonment which courts now have to impose in default of any other way of dealing with wrongdoers. The courts impose longer and longer terms of imprisonment and the man comes back again and again for his crimes.
The second vice of the present system is that it leads to repetition in litigation. Since tie injured person cannot obtain satisfaction in the criminal court where the man who has done him wrong is brought to justice, he must go to a civil court. The third vice is that this puts on the injured person an appalling burden which he frequently may not wish to discharge, even with legal aid. Because of the ruling in the High Court case of Hollington v. Hewthorn the wrongdoer is not estopped in the civil proceedings from denying his crime and fighting the case over again.
There has lately been a number of cases in the High Court which amounts to nothing less than a public scandal. There was one case in which a bank sued bank robbers for the money involved, knowing that it was there. The robbers denied their guilt and the matter was tried ail over again. Frequently such actions take weeks. Sometimes in the civil proceedings somebody convicted by a jury gets away with it. That is wholly wrong, and the present system which has served us over the centuries now stands in need of radical changes. The step proposed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) is a first step towards such radical changes—or a second step, if we accept the compensation which can now be given to victims of crimes of violence.

Mr. Hale: I humbly apologise to the House for having the impertinence to intervene in a discussion in which I had to deprive myself of the privilege of hearing the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St.

Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) open, on the sole ground that I was taking my second snack of the day in 24 hours under the, I think, well-founded apprehension that we are moving to a part of our discussions which may take a considerable time and in which, whether my presence is desired on the Front Bench or not, it is desirable from my point of view.
I was sorry about that, because the Clause seems to me to be an admirably drafted and well thought-out way of dealing with some of the major problems, of which there are many. The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) made an admirable statement of principle, in which there appeared some rather menacing words. I have been told that he said—I was on the cold table at the time—that this must go to some sort of Committee and I apprehend that the "some sort of committee" may be the Payne Committee, of which I am a member. Those of us who struggle on the Payne Committee to resolve the very difficult, complicated and multifarious problems already submitted to us might have some difficulty in facing additional problems.
As a member of the committee I cannot make any observations about its deliberations, although almost everyone else who is not a member is constantly making them. Here and in another place it has been reported from time to time that decisions will be made shortly, and that one has only to wait for another dawn. I am prepared to say that we shall go on with our labours until we finish them, unless we expire in the process—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member will please come to the Clause.

Mr. Hale: I did not hear you, Mr. Speaker, but I apprehend that you said that I was almost out of order. I was thinking the same thing at that moment and would have turned at the end of my sentence to revert to the question.
I am not sure what the position is in the Fifth Republic. No doubt, we shall know when the "grand debate" opens and continues almost indefinitely for the next six months. I think that the position of the Partie Civile in French law is singularly objectionable. There is the fiction that the Advocat-General is holding


the balance between the parties, considering the interests of the State, criminal and justice, and the real prosecuting counsel is always for the Partie Civile, who takes part. Under the right hon. and learned Gentleman's provisions, the advocate of the Partie Civile does not take part. It is merely for the court to say that it is an appropriate case in which the question of compensation should be considered, and there are obviously many cases where it should be considered.
Having expressed one general approval, I must say this in fairness to my right hon. Friend. I feel that the right hon. and learned Gentleman overlooks his criticisms in Committee for introducing too many new Clauses and getting almost near the exterior bounds of the ambit of the Bill. This is a pretty hefty new Clause to ask my right hon. Friend to accept offhand, or to do other than raise what I hope will be a very reasonable and constructive discussion. My right hon. Friend may say that it has been raised before and that we must not on this debate talk about who was here before, or how long he has had to deal with this. But in a comparatively short time he has produced some major reforms, and this is a Measure of an admirable and constructive kind. This debate has brought us to a considerable advance.
7.30 p.m.
I have always said that I disliked the fact that our rules impose upon us the burden of piecemeal legislation. I want to see compensation for everyone physically crippled; I want to see it done on a general principle and not on the principle that we should begin by having exceptions for policemen with dangerous duties, and not for policemen injured by motorcars. I want to see not only compensation for the victims of a crime but compensation for the people who rush to their assistance, and so on. This is no criticism of the new Clause. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is bound by the rules of the House, and has tabled, within the rules, an admirable suggestion for consideration and debate, but not for immediate consideration and debate. I hope that my right hon. Friend will say that his new Clause is one that he will regard as worthy of further study.
A recent speech of Lord Denning's it seems indicated the need for proposals for

reform. Many Measures have been propounded and are coming forward which will give us a chance to consider this again. It is a matter to be considered again favourably and in detail.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) has made a good attempt in his new Clause to put forward a constructive solution, but I do not think that he will be surprised if I say that I cannot accept the new Clause as it stands offhand, it having been on the Paper for only a very short time. I am most anxious, I think as anxious as any hon. Member in the House, to move quickly on this question of reparation. It is most important, and I read with great interest the article by the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) in The Times this morning. We had a debate in Committee but that does not preclude having another one here, and I attach great importance to it.
If there have been 60 years wasted, I have not wasted a very large part of them, and I will endeavour not to do so in future. This is one of the two most urgent questions which I referred, not to the committee, on which my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) sits, he will be delighted to hear, but to the Advisory Council on the Penal System. I hope to have an early report from it. I do not think that it would be right, having referred it to the committee, to accept a partial solution even if there were not other difficulties, and there are other difficulties associated with this new Clause at this stage. I have no intention of being dilatory about it. I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his suggestion which we will study carefully.

Mr. Hogg: I believe that I have a right to reply, which I will seek not to abuse. It would be churlish of me not to thank various hon. Members, from all quarters of the House, who have paid me the compliment of taking this as it was intended to be taken, as a serious suggestion. I am bound to say that the Home Secretary has, to some extent, blunted the edge of the rather bitter reply that I was preparing for his hon. and learned Friend, who I thought made a perfunctory, superficial and highly discourteous speech.
I am very sorry that he thought fit to make it, but since he made it, it is


necessary for me to say why I put this new Clause down. One has every right to put down on Report, Amendments to which one attaches a great deal of importance. The Amendment that we discussed in Committee was a different Amendment, quite different in conception although it was designed to meet a similar purpose. I supported it in principle, but said then that I did not think that the actual terms of the Amendment mattered, for we were discussing the principle.
I gave the matter further thought in between the Committee stage and Report I have been 35 years of my life in the study of the law and I took some trouble to draft this Amendment myself. I expected it to be treated with a little more courtesy from the Under-Secretary than to be told that I was imprudent and foolish to put it down at all. I bitterly resented his speech, and I saw nothing in what I have said or done to deserve it.
I expected to be told, and I was duly told, at the Home Secretary was referring this to his Advisory Committee. That is all very well. We were told that in reply to the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger). How often has this Committee met? Neither the Home Secretary nor the Under-Secretary of State has told us. My information is that it has not met at all, or that it has only met once to discuss this urgent question. Is that right? I was told that I ought not to have raised this matter for discussion because it was being referred to the Advisory Committee.
This is a committee put forward to the House as an alternative to the Commission which was killed, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North was a member. How often has the Committee met? I am told hardly at all. When will it report? We have not been given any indication at all. I would be prepared to accept from the Home Secretary, because I have accepted a good deal from him, his good intentions in these matters, but what we desire to see is a little bit of action.

I sincerely believe that there are no practical objections to the new Clause that I have proposed. There are none that I can see, and none have been put forward. I know that it is a difficult matter, but it is a difficult matter to which I have given a good deal of thought and the speakers who have contributed to this debate have, collectively, a good deal of experience behind them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North was a member of the Commission on Penal Reform which was destroyed. The hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) has had previous experience. My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) has unrivalled experience of criminal law and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster) has a lifetime of experience both of criminal and civil law. He has sat as a judge and incidentally, is very familiar with the law on the Continent. He is one of the very few experts on comparative law in the House. All of these speakers say that it is possible, as did the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), who has given his whole life to the solicitors' profession. They all see nothing wrong with the new Clause and the Government have not specified anything wrong with it.

The Home Secretary has said that he will give us action. If there is to be rapid action, let us have this new Clause accepted and given a Second Reading. Why not? My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) murmured that it would be difficult for a criminal court to act as an assessing authority. It is not asked to do so. It can give a declaration on the law under subsection (2). The rights are not exhaustive but concurrent under subsection (5). What is the objection to this? I think that we ought to give this new Clause a Second Reading, and I am going to ask my hon. Friends to support me in the Division Lobby.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time: —

The House divided:Ayes 121, Noes 176.

Division No. 322.]
AYES
[7.40 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Awdry, Daniel
Biffen, John


Astor, John
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Body, Richard




Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hill, J. E. B.
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Percival, Ian


Burden, F. A.
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Peyton, John


Cary, Sir Robert
Holland, Philip
Pink, R, Bonner


Chichester-Clark, R.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Clegg, Walter
Hunt, John
Pym, Francis


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Crouch, David
Iremonger, T. L.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Joplling, Michael
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Currie, G. B. H.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rldsdale, Julian


Dance, James
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Russell, Sir Ronald


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Scott, Nicholas


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Longden, Gilbert
Sharples, Richard


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Lubbock, Eric
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Sinclair, Sir George


Elliott, R.W.(N tle-uponTyne,N.)
Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Erritigton, Sir Eric
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Tapsell, Peter


Eyre, Reginald
McMaster, Stanley
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Fisher, Nigel
Maginnls, John E.
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maude, Angus
Temple, John M.


Fortescue, Tim
Mawby, Ray
Tilney, John


Foster, Sir John
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Gibson-Watt, David
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Miscampbell, Norman
Walters, Dennis


Glover, Sir Douglas
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Webster, David


Gower, Raymond
Monro, Hector
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Grant, Anthony
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Whitelaw. William


Gresham Cooke, R.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Grieve, Percy
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Murton, Oscar
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Neave, Alrey
Worsley, Marcus


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar



Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Onslow, Cranley
Mr. Jasper More and


Heseltine, Michael
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Mr. Timothy Kitson.


Hiley, Joseph
Page, Graham (Crosby)





NOES


Albu, Austen
Faulds, Andrew
Lawson, George


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Fernyhough, E.
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Alldritt, Walter
Finch, Harold
Lestor, Miss Joan


Allen, Scholefield
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lomas, Kenneth


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Foley, Maurice
Loughlin, Charles


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Galpern, Sir Myer
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Baxter, William
Ginsburg, David
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Beaney, Alan
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
MacColl, James


Bence, Cyril
Gourlay, Harry
MacDermot, Niall


Bishop, E. S.
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Macdonald, A. H.


Blackburn, F.
Gregory, Arnold
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Booth, Albert
Grey, Charles (Durham)
MacPherson, Malcolm


Boston, Terence
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Mailalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Manuel, Archie


Brooks, Edwin
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mapp, Charles


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hamling, William
Marquand, David


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Harper, Joseph
Mason, Roy


Buchan, Norman
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mellish, Robert


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, SP'burn)
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Mendelson, J. J.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Haseldine, Norman
Millan, Bruce


Carmichael, Neil
Hazell, Bert
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Coe, Denis
Henig, Stanley
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Coleman, Donald
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Moonman, Eric


Concannon, J. D.
Horner, John
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Conlan, Bernard
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Moyle, Roland


Cronin, John
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Murray, Albert


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Howie, W.
Neal, Harold


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Newens, Stan


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Hynd, John
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby,S.)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Oakes, Gordon


Delargy, Hugh
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
O'Malley, Brian


Dewar, Donald
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Oram, Albert E.


Dickens, James
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Orme, Stanley


Doig, Peter
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Oswald, Thomas


Eadie, Alex
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham,S.)
Padley, Walter


English, Michael
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Palmer, Arthur


Ennals, David
Kenyon, Clifford
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Ensor, David
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)







Pentland, Norman
Steel, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Whitaker, Ben


Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
White, Mrs. Eirene


Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Stonehouse, John
Whitlock, William


Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Swingler, Stephen
Wllkins, W. A.


Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Symonds, J. B.
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Rees, Merlyn
Taverne, Dick
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Rhodes, Geoffrey
Tomney, Frank
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Urwin, T. W.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Varley, Eric G.
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Woof, Robert


Shore, Peter (Stepney)
Wallace, George
Yates, Victor


Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Watkins, David (Consett)



Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Small, William
Weitzman, David
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Spriggs, Leslie
Wellbeloved, James
Mr. Neil McBride.

Clause 1.—(COMMITTAL FOR TRIAL WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF THE EVIDENCE.)

Mr. Taverne: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 12, after section 'to insert 'with or without exhibits'.
This is simply a drafting Amendment to ensure that a committal for trial under Clause 1 is not precluded merely because the evidence consists of exhibits as well as written statements made under Clause 2.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2.—(WRITTEN STATEMENTS BEFORE EXAMINING JUSTICES.)

Mr. Taverne: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 30, at the end to insert:
(3) The following provisions shall also have effect in relation to any written statement tendered in evidence under this section, that is to say—

(a) if the statement is made by a person under the age of twenty-one, it shall give his age;
(b) if it is made by a person who cannot read it, it shall be read to him before he signs it and shall be accompanied by a declaration by the person who so read the statement to the effect that it was so read; and
(c) if it refers to any other document as an exhibit, the copy given to any other party to the proceedings under paragraph (c) of the last foregoing subsection shall be accompanied by a copy of that document or by such information as may be necessary in order to enable the party to whom it is given to inspect that document or a copy thereof.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): We can take at the same time Amendment No. 13—in page 6, line 19.

Mr. Taverne: These Amendments are partly the result of an Amendment which

was moved in Committee by the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) and partly the result of an Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve).
Paragraph (a) in each Amendment provides that a statement made by a person under the age of 21 shall give his age. It is right that the recipient of a copy of a statement proposed to be offered in evidence should be able to assess its value by reference to the age of the person who made it if that person is young. It was suggested at one stage that the age should be 17, but we thought that 21 was marginally better.
Paragraph (b) in each Amendment provides that a statement made by someone who cannot read should be read to him by the person taking the statement, who should also complete a declaration himself.
Paragraph (c) in each Amendment provides that when a statement refers to any other document which is to be exhibited in the proceedings it is to be accompanied by a copy of the other document or the information necessary to enable the recipient of the statements to inspect it. It is the intention wherever practicable that copies should be served, but in some cases the exhibits may be extremely bulky ledgers, and this will not be practicable, and the requirement is then restricted to providing the opportunity for inspection. We are grateful to the hon. Member for North Fylde and the hon. and learned Member for Solihull for drawing this omission to our attention.
It was also suggested that we should deal with the statements of people who could not understand English. But on further consideration we thought that an Amendment to provide for this was not really necessary. It is obviously in the interests of the prosecution to ensure that


it gets written statements accepted rather than oral evidence. Clearly, if somebody made a statement in a foreign language, a translation would be provided together with a copy of the original. Obviously, the prosecution would be interested in seeing that this was done, because if the defence offered a written statement in Chinese, not many people would accept it.

Mr. Clegg: I thank the Under-Secretary of State for moving the Amendment. It meets the points which were raised in Committee and it will help enormously both the defence and the prosecution.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Taverne: I beg to move Amendment 3, in page 2, line 38, to leave out 'has power to commit' and to insert 'commits'.
This is a drafting Amendment to deal with a mistake in the original Bill which was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Archer). It is to restrict the cases in which normally written statements under the Clause are not to be read aloud to those in which the court commits the defendant for trial under Clause 1 without consideration of the evidence.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Taverne: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 41, at the end to insert:
'and where the court so directs an account shall be given orally of so much of any statement as is not read aloud'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment, we can discuss also Amendment No. 14, in Clause 7, page 6, line 40.

Mr. Taverne: Subsection (4) of Clause 2 and subsection (5) of Clause 7, with which Amendment 14 is concerned, require written statements tendered in evidence under the Clause to be read aloud in court. A discretion is given, however, to the courts to direct that the statement should not be read aloud. This implements a recommendation of the Criminal Law Revision Committee at paragraph 15 of its Report that where long, formal and repetitious evidence is to be given, time need not be wasted in oral recitation. It

is, however, recognised that there should be no suggestion of secrecy being given to parts of statements which are not read aloud.
The Amendments, therefore, require an oral account to be given in court of any statement or part of a statement which is not read aloud in accordance with the provisions of those subsections.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Taverne: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 3, line 7, at the end to insert:
(7) In section 2(2) of the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1933 (procedure for preferring bills of indictment) the reference in proviso (i) to facts disclosed in any deposition taken before a justice in the presence of the defendant shall be construed as including a reference to facts disclosed in any such written statement as aforesaid.
The Amendment provides for written statements admitted in evidence in committal proceedings to have the status of depositions for the purpose of founding indictments according to Section 2(2) of the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1933. Under that Section, indictment may contain counts founded on evidence disclosed in the depositions as well as, or instead of, those based on the charges on which the defendant was committed for trial.
In Committee, the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) asked whether the status of depositions or written statements tendered under these Clauses should be covered by a general provision in the Bill. We have carefully reviewed all the references to depositions and we believe that such a general provision is not necessary and is not advantageous, because in some cases it would be wrong to equate statements with depositions.
A large number of Amendments will be required to the magistrates' courts' rules and these will be enacted in due course.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3.—(RESTRICTIONS ON REPORTS OF COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS.)

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 3, line 22, to leave out subsection (2) and to insert:
(2) A magistrates' court shall, on an application for the purpose made with reference to


any committal proceedings by the defendant or one of the defendants, as the case may be, order that the foregoing subsection shall not apply to reports of those proceedings.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment, we can discuss the Amendment to it, to leave out 'not', and Amendment No. 83 in page 3, line 16, leave out from beginning to 'it' in line 17 and insert:
'Where an order is made under subsection (2) of this section',
and Amendment No. 84, in page 4, line 6, leave out 'without' and insert 'despite'.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: This Amendment and Amendment No. 7 are drafting Amendments essentially to ensure that where a magistrates' court makes an order under subsection (2) to remove the restrictions on publicity, that order is to apply to the whole of the committal proceedings and not simply to the proceedings after the making of the order or to any part selected by the court or the defendant.
In the Clause, the references to "such matter in line 24, "that matter" in line 25 and "any such matter" in line 32 could possibly be construed as permitting that kind of selective order. The Amendments are intended to remove that ambiguity.
I should, perhaps, also explain that the new subsection (2) preserves the position that an order permitting full reporting must be made on the application of one of several defendants. In Committee, it was urged by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin), who is not present today, and, possibly, by other hon. Members, that when there were several defendants they would all have to opt for publicity before publicity should be granted.
I have considered the point carefully. Clearly, there are balances of advantage on either side. I was, however, not anxious to place any unnecessary restriction on Press reporting. I thought it better, therefore, to preserve the position that where any one defendant opted for publicity, he should be able to obtain publicity. That position is preserved in the new subsection (2).

Sir J. Hobson: I understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we are discussing also our Amend-

ment to the proposed Amendment. I am grateful for what the Home Secretary has said. Two major matters arise on Amendment No. 6. As the Bill would be amended in accordance with the right hon. Gentleman's provisions, it would provide that the normal rule in any committal proceedings would be that they could not be reported unless the defendant, or, if there were more than one defendant, one or other of them, made an application to the court.
The problem of two defendants is subsidiary. Whatever the rule may be, however, I suggest that in a case where the interest of the defendants may conflict, there should be discretion with the court about how to decide the matter. There should be no difficulty in a magistrates' court in hearing applications both to allow the Press to report proceedings and to prohibit their being reported when the interests of the two defendants are in conflict and for a decision to be made at the discretion of the court. It is wholly unnecessary, in whichever way the balance lies, to say that either the application of one defendant or the application of all defendants is to control where the interests of the defendants conflict. In that event, the court should have power to decide. I am sorry that the Home Secretary has not adopted that suggestion which was made in Committee.
What is of much more importance, however, and of far wider import is whether, as the Home Secretary proposes, there should be no reporting of committal proceedings unless one or other of the defendants applies or whether, as we suggest, the rules should be the other way round and all committal proceedings should be capable of being reported unless one or other of the defendants applies for an inhibition against it.
In practice, that would make a substantial difference. If the Home Secretary's proposal is adopted, it will, I think, be inevitable that almost no defendant, and certainly none of a defendant's advisers, will ever, or will only seldom, take the bold course of saying, "Let us allow the Press to report these proceedings, because that may be helpful to us".
We must recognise that there may or may not be advantage, and since the


Home Secretary's proposal appears to confer a privilege on the defendant it will be one that the defendant will always claim, even though on a better judgment he might have been wiser to have allowed the proceedings to be reported.
8.0 p.m.
The result will be that the Press will not be present. In local courts, particularly, they will not provide reporters to sit all day to listen to proceedings which they are unable to report. Therefore, even if the defendant decides that he would like the proceedings to be reported, and makes the application and it is granted, it will almost inevitably be the case that no member of the Press will be present who will have listened to the proceedings and be ready to report them.
The ordinary rule about all our judicial proceedings is that they should be held in public. I recognise that this is not a trial, and only a preliminary matter, but it is, nevertheless, a very important element in our judicial proceedings, and an important step in a matter of considerable public interest. I would prefer to see the situation in which the ordinary rule is that the committal proceedings may be reported. The Press are therefore likely to be present, and it is only when a defendant considers that he might be at a disadvantage if the proceedings are reported that he applies for them not to be.
I recognise that that has the disadvantage of placing on the defendant some difficulties, and certainly a difficult decision, but I would have thought that in the ordinary case most people, and certainly most practitioners, both solicitors and members of the Bar, know that the jury are unaffected by any report of the committal proceedings. The ordinary motoring case, the ordinary breaking and entering case, is of the greatest interest to people in the locality, and if it is reported, everybody in the locality knows about it.
If the proceedings are not reported, rumour is liable in a provincial area to exaggerate the case. The story passes from person to person, it is discussed in public houses, and the charges against a person who lives locally are liable to be grossly exaggerated, whereas if the newspapers contain a short report of the committal proceedings, which makes plain the nature of the case, the air is cleared and

nobody is in any doubt about what has happened.
There may, on the other hand, of course, be the exceptional case in which different considerations arise. I do not take the view that it places a very heavy or difficult burden on those appearing for the defence to advise against having the proceedings reported. In cases like the Moors trial, the Bodkin Adams case, or the Rouse case, where prejudicial evidence might result from the committal proceedings being reported, it would be possible for the defence to apply for the proceedings not to be reported. Such cases are of considerable public interest. It is plain that in such cases the interests of the accused may be affected, and he can decide whether or not in his judgment his interests are or are not going to be affected. This may place a burden on him, but I do not think that it is an unusual or difficult one, and it is one which I would have thought could easily be discharged without any disadvantage to a defendant.
I do not believe, and I never have, that the reporting of committal proceedings is necessarily a disadvantage to a defendant. I do not believe that at the trial the jury are affected, except in the occasional case, and there are many occasions when witnesses who would not otherwise have done so come forward after reading the committal proceedings. This is the experience of all who know the courts.
I would have preferred the general rule applicable to all our proceedings to be that they should be reported unless the defendant decides that they ought not to be, and he should then be allowed to claim the right. This is why I shall in due course move the Amendment to the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment.

Mr. Weitzman: The point raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) was fully considered by the Tucker Committee. I was a member of this Committee, and we spent a considerable time going into all these matters. We came to the conclusion, on the evidence and the views put before us, that it would be wrong to separate the matter in any way.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke about motoring cases. One may get prejudice in motoring cases just as in other cases. Where does one draw the line? We considered the question of


rumours flying about. Once we accept the principle that a report of the committal proceedings may come to the knowledge of the jury and affect their minds, it is not merely a question whether it is a heavy case. It may be a case which is reported in full in the local newspaper. The members of the jury may read it, and then the case is heard by them and they have the details of it in mind.
If a person is subsequently acquitted, one often finds that the local newspaper contains a long report of the case but no mention of the fact that he has been acquitted. In other words, great publicity is given to the initial proceedings, but none to the result. I think that the Tucker Committee was right in rejecting this proposal, and I think that the matter should stand where it is.

Mr. Deedes: This matter has been argued a good deal already, and I do not want to prolong the debate at this stage. I wish to stress one point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Learning-ton (Sir J. Hobson) about the reporting of committal proceedings. Courts will not be reliably covered, indeed they may not be covered at all, for the purpose of reporting committal proceedings. As committal proceedings are usually grouped together, it will mean that during that time the Press will not be represented there, or at least will not be represented by the skilled reporters who are required for the business of reporting committal proceedings. It will be a matter of allocating men to collect particulars which are made available in these cases, and this will become a routine matter.
As my right hon. Friend said, as no obligation will rest on the Press to attend courts for these committal proceedings, it will more often than not be the case that if a defendant operates this provision, no member of the Press will be available to report the proceedings. In effect, therefore, the courts will remain substantially uncovered for committal proceedings.
Because a large section of the Press has been confronted with this proposal, it has got into some heads that there is an element of special pleading here, and that it is the newspapers who are putting forward that it is in their interests that

this change be not made. This is not the case. The case has been presented very persuasively by a number of jurists as well as newspaper men, and before we part with the subject that should be made clear.

Mr. Buck: This matter has been fully argued in Committee. I am very unhappy about the House deciding that as a general rule things which happen in public in courts shall not be allowed to be reported. The principle at the moment is that things which happen in public are allowed to be reported in full in the newspapers, within certain bounds, of course. They should be reported in the Press. It should not be the general rule that what goes on in court during committal proceedings shall not be reported unless application is made that it shall be. I am sure that this is a wrong principle. In the past it has always been accepted to be right that what happened in public should be able to be reported by the Press, and I am reluctant to see this principle go.
I think that the least the House should do is accept the Amendment which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) will move in due course. It will at least retain the general rule that the Press are allowed to report what takes place unless the defence thinks it worthwhile to make a positive application that the proceedings shall not be reported. This goes some way to meet the point of principle.
In spite of the persuasiveness of the Tucker Committee, which had on it such distinguished members as the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman), I have never been convinced that the reporting of committal proceedings has a deleterious effect on the defendant at the subsequent trial. There is usually a considerable time lag between the reporting of the committal proceedings and the end of the trial, and during that time the jury have been listening to the evidence for a considerable period, and have realised that they must decide the case on the evidence they have heard. They have had this reiterated by defence and prosecution counsel, and no doubt in a very lengthy summing up by the judge. Anything that they may have read some


months back about the committal proceedings is unlikely to have any substantial effect on their minds. They will hear the evidence at the trial, weigh it up and give such weight to it as they think proper. They will be told that they must decide the case upon the evidence.
The Bodkin Adams case has been mentioned. In that case the result was favourable to the accused. If there was any prejudice it was not sufficient to affect the verdict. I am not happy at the thought of departing from the general principle that what happens in public should be reported. The Amendments will go some way to meeting this point of principle and in due course I hope the House will support them.

Mr. John Cronin: Like the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) I feel some discomfort about the Clause as drafted. I realise that this matter was fully debated in Committee, but it is of such public importance that it will stand debating in more detail now.
I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that any interference with the Press is extremely undesirable and that if there is to be any such interference the case must be at least extremely strong, if not overwhelming. I am not altogether certain whether the case for limiting the power of the Press in this respect is as strong as to justify the retention of the Clause in its present form. I hope that the Home Secretary or the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to reassure me on this point.
I appreciate that the arguments for the Clause are strong. There is the unanimous recommendation of the very distinguished Tucker Committee. But even that Committee's recommendations were of a qualified nature, in that they said that there were formidable objections to holding committal proceedings in camera. They also said that it was not possible to establish whether or not there was a prejudicial effect upon the defendant. Nevertheless, they made a unanimous recommendation, largely on the lines of the Clause.
The other obvious argument in favour of the Clause is that there must be some danger of prejudice arising if there is unfettered publicity of committal proceed-

ings. I want the Home Secretary or the Parliamentary Secretary to give us more details of the way in which the defendant would be seriously prejudiced. It seems an obvious proposition, but nevertheless I should like to know more detail of the exact mechanism which might be held to affect the prospect of a fair trial for the defendant in the final analysis.
Press reports of committal proceedings must sometimes have a useful effect in bringing forward witnesses for the defendant or in bringing to light matters which might be helpful to him. The Tucker Committee indicated that out of 21 cases in only ten was the defendant acquitted as a result of matters being brought to light through preliminary publicity of the committal proceedings. That should not be regarded as final, because there must be many cases where a defendant has been helped by preliminary publicity which has brought to light further evidence in his favour.
8.15 p.m.
Another important argument is that Press reports of committal proceedings can cause rumours to be curbed and a much more helpful picture to be presented of the defendant. That is not always the case, of course. I was impressed by the argument put forward by the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) that if the Clause remains as it is the Press will cease to attend committal proceedings. That might well happen, with the result that even if a defendant wanted to take advantage of the Clause and wanted full publicity he would not be able to have it, simply because the Press would have stopped attending committal proceedings.
This question causes me some discomfort. I would not go as far as to say that I support the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) but there is a case for the Home Secretary to give us a full and careful explanation before we accept the Clause as it is.

Mr. Doughty: On the whole, this Bill, on which much hard work was done in Committee, can be described as a good one, but there are a few of its provisions with which I do not agree, and this is one. As a general rule, proceedings in courts are public. Not only is the public admitted but the Press and, if necessary,


B.B.C. and television reporters. On the whole that is a very good thing, because it provides an accurate description of what has happened and prevents distorted rumours going round, as would otherwise be the case, growing in strength and volume as they pass from mouth to mouth.
The Bill does not refer to trials being held in camera. Sometimes a trial is held in camera on grounds of national security. The Bill merely provides that the Press shall not report committal proceedings. Whatever may be said about a defendant being able to apply for the proceedings to be reported, such an application would be quite worthless because the Press would not be present. Proceedings held under the Children and Young Persons Act can be regarded as an example of what happens. Once it is announced that these proceedings shall not be reported there is an immediate drifting away of all reporters from the court, and if the order were reversed in the course of those proceedings nobody would be left to report them. That is what would happen in the case of committal proceedings.
We must weigh up the pros and cons in order to see where the advantage lies. I have had considerable experience in this respect, and I am not satisfied that a report, in the local or national Press, of any committal proceedings has the slightest effect upon the 12 people who subsequently form the jury. To begin with, in nearly every case there is merely a short paragraph in the local Press, reporting that A and B were committed for trial at the local quarter sessions or assizes and that it was alleged that they had broken into a house or into 14 houses in the course of the last two or three weeks. Nobody pays much attention to such a report.
Occasionally there is what might be described as a sensational case, where the committal proceedings are given many columns even in the national Press. Sometimes these proceedings result in acquittals and on other occasions in convictions, but although the jury may have read those reports they will not have taken much account of them. They will not have read much about the cross-examination, because there is little cross-examination at committal proceedings, and their minds will not have been

affected. The judge in charge of the case and the counsel appearing for the defence will always tell the jury, "You must not listen to a word you hear outside; you must try this case upon the evidence which you hear here, including, of course, the cross-examination by counsel of the witnesses called for the prosecution and those called for the defence".
If the Press were to outstrip the bounds of what it is able to do, as very occasionally happens, and after or during committal proceedings were to comment on the trial unfavourably and disclose, because of a slip, as has happened before now, its knowledge that the accused had a number of previous convictions, for instance, it would be brought before another court on the serious charge of contempt of court prejudicing the fair trial of the accused and be heavily fined for its mistake. This has happened more than once in the past, and rightly happened. But when all the Press does is to report the evidence which is given and to report whether the person has or has not been committed for trial, it assists the administration of justice and does not hinder it in any way.
If it is to be provided that an accused can apply for the evidence to be published, if the charge is one of riotous assembly, of wilful damage, if someone has broken the place up and the accused wants others to come forward to help him, he will be prevented from doing so because the box assigned to journalists who have to report these matters will be empty, and there will be no one from the local Press, who will have taken the view that it would be a waste of time to sit there.
Having weighed the pros and cons of this matter very carefully, I have unhesitatingly concluded that the trial should not only be held in public, but reported, subject to the provisions about children and young persons and national security, and that we should be wrong if we restricted that further.

Mr. Hale: May I express very briefly my gratitude to the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) for making very much more ably than I could the speech which I made at 3.45 in their absence? When I said these things


at 3.45 on an earlier new Clause, the dogs on the other side barked. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite addressed me with becoming sympathy and pointed out the error of my ways. Finally, it was said that perhaps these matters would arise on this Amendment, if they did not arise before. I was rushing mentally frustrated and almost tongue-tied from the Chamber in fear of being remanded for a medical report, and I cannot say how grateful I am that the same thing has now been said by two such illustrious political personalities, for it has meant that I can go home with my head high once more.

Mr. Sharples: I wish briefly to support the Amendment. There might have been a case for holding committal proceedings of this kind in camera, but this was ruled out by the Tucker Committee for very good reasons. We now have the worst of all possible worlds. We have the situation in which these proceedings will be open to members of the general public, who will be able to speak about what they have heard during the proceedings and, if they wish, give distorted versions of what has taken place. In the words of the Press Council:
We have now reached the situation in which the dangers of rumour and distortion of fact which may arise from this state of affairs ought not to need emphasis.
This is our difficulty. Certainly the defence will suffer as much as anyone else in this situation. I strongly support what was said by my right hon. and learned Friend about the possibility of witnesses coming forward as a result of reading in the Press responsible accounts, such as the Press produces, of what has taken place in committal proceedings.
On the whole, we have a very good Bill, but this provision goes some way to putting a blemish on a Bill which we would otherwise all welcome.

Dr. Winstanley: The dilemma with which some of us are faced arises not out of improper or irresponsible reporting, but out of the very nature of committal proceedings themselves. The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) reminded hon. Members, and pointed out to those of us who did not know, that in Scotland and on the Continent no publicity was given to pretrial proceedings and, as he also advised us, neither Scotland nor the Continent

suffered any sense of injustice from it. However, as was explained, that is because fundamentally there is nothing to report of the pre-trial proceedings, which take place in private, so that there cannot be these dangers. We have public proceedings and in many ways that is unsatisfactory.
Having considered all the arguments which were made in Committee and some of those which have been made today, I am bound to say that I have now rather changed my position and I now do not support the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment. I am converted to that view very largely by the extremely persuasive speech of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone in Committee. I do not know whether he still takes the same view, but he then pointed out that committal proceedings were inevitably damaging to the accused. That has been argued by a number of hon. Members today. The right hon. and learned Gentleman in Committee said:
… there is no question of the propriety of reporting… What there is to be reported is the prosecution case, the opening of the case by prosecuting counsel, who bring the prosecution case together in an extremely telling and effective form.
It is idle for my right hon. and learned Friend to say that cannot operate prejudicially to the defendant.
He went on to say:
It is not customary for a responsible counsel to cross-examine at length, so that the evidence is not even tested in practice. I do not accept that this is not prejudicial to the defence".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 25th January, 1967; c. 108–9.]
It may seem somewhat curious that I should have been persuaded by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and should now be taking a view which appears to be opposite to that taken by his hon. Friend. However, I feel that our committal proceedings are wholly unsatisfactory. Because they are, we have to do something extremely undesirable about the Press which is in no way responsible for this situation. I accept that this is the answer to it and I would therefore oppose any Amendments which weakened the Clause.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: If the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) has been persuaded by the words of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) to vote against his Amendment, I only hope that he will not be


persuaded by my words to vote against my proposal. I will therefore endeavour to keep my remarks fairly brief in the hope that by so doing I will at least minimise that danger.
I agree with him that to some extent we are in a dilemma in dealing with this problem and that it is a difficult issue. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman), who was a member of the Tucker Committee, the distinguished committee which produced a unanimous Report, set out some of the arguments which affected its decision. What we propose is not pure Tucker because the situation which the Tucker Committee envisaged will not exist when the Bill is law, as a large part of committal proceedings will not exist to be reported. Equally, we propose that there should be an option for the defence, where it thinks right, to opt for full publicity. The issue between us on the Amendments is whether it should be an option to contract in or one to contract out.
8.30 p.m.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin), who was not on the Committee, raised the general issue, perhaps I might deal with it. There are three possible reasons why objection might be taken to publicity of committal proceedings. The first, which the Committee was most concerned about, is the possible prejudice to the defence, in the sense that there would not be an unprejudiced jury. This cannot be proved conclusively, but it was a view which a number of distinguished gentlemen took after much more exhaustive consideration than we have been able to give. There is at least good reason to believe that this is so. as witnesses for the defence are not brought forward. When we asked the Law Society, which put this view, to give us some examples, it gave practically none, as there was none available.
Second, the view can be taken that, independently of any effect which it might have on the result of the trial, it is nonetheless prejudicial to the defendant's character and reputation that the evidence in committal proceedings should be publicised at great length and, six weeks later, only a very small paragraph might appear to say that he had

been acquitted; the relative impact of the two could be very different.
This is one difficulty about reporting committal proceedings, that only one side of the case is presented—

Mr. Doughty: Our earlier discussion made it clear that the name, address and occupation of and charges against a person will be reported without the facts, and if the hon. Gentleman thinks that the facts will get around accurately, he is greatly mistaken.

Mr. Jenkins: But one side of the case would not be reported at length in newspapers.
Third, there is the separate issue to which, from time to time, when very sensational cases are reported, hon. Members on both sides take objection—that the public should be served up twice over with the details of a highly sensational and revolting case. I recall that, after a recent case, I was urged by two hon. Members from that side of the House to bring in legislation to restrict reporting not merely of committal proceedings but of the trial itself, which is something I would be very loath to do. I would ask the House to keep in mind that there is no restriction here upon reporting the proceedings which can result in the determination of the issue, which could result in a man's guilt or innocence being established.
The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) said that this goes against the principle upon which we have acted, but he is not correct, because there spring to mind at least two examples of restrictions on what may be reported and what is said in court—the restriction which the House imposed 40 years ago upon reporting of evidence in divorce cases and the restriction upon cases involving juveniles. Although this does not settle the issue here, it means that there are two precedents and that we are not breaking dangerous new ground.
Therefore, there are considerable grounds for restricting reporting of committal proceedings. Although I approach any restriction on the rights of the Press with great caution, this is reasonable and justifiable. We propose that the defendant should retain the complete right, if it is in his interests, to opt for publicity.
The hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty), who has great experience of the working of courts, was worried about how far publicity can be secured. There is something in this, but there is no absolute right to publicity. In rural areas and small towns, local newspapers normally report committal proceedings, but in many great cities with no local newspapers in the full sense of the term, there is very little reporting unless the case is very sensational.
No one has an absolute right to publicity. Only the Press can determine what is reported. It would be possible for the defendant who wanted publicity, of course, through his legal advisers or some other means, to give notice that he was doing this, and, if the case were of considerable interest, the Press would then ensure that they were there.
However, the issue between us is which way the option should lie. It is a nar-

row issue, but I think that we have chosen the better way. Otherwise, we should put the defendant in the invidious position of having to say, "I do not want publicity in this Case," thus giving the impression that he had something to hide. Bearing in mind the general arguments, there is a strong case for what we are doing generally and it is better that the option should be one of contracting in rather than of contracting out.

Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill, put and negatived.

Question proposed, That those words be there inserted in the Bill.

Sir J. Hobson: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out 'not'.

Question put, That 'not' stand part of the proposed Amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 181, Noes 129.

Division No. 323.]
AYES
[8.35 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Foley, Maurice
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Galpern, Sir Myer
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Alldritt, Walter
Ginsburg, David
McBride, Neil


Allen, Scholefield
Gourlay, Harry
MacDermot, Niall


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Macdonald, A. H.


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Gregory, Arnold
McGuire, Michael


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&amp;Crom'ty)


Baxter, William
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Beaney, Alan
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
MacPherson, Malcolm


Bence, Cyril
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Bishop, E. S.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Manuel, Archie


Blackburn, F.
Hamling, William
Mapp, Charles


Booth, Albert
Harper, Joseph
Marquand, David


Boston, Terence
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mason, Roy


Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Mellish, Robert


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Haseldine, Norman
Mendelson, J. J.


Brooks, Edwin
Hazell, Bert
Millan, Bruce


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Buchan, Norman
Horner, John
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Moonman, Eric


Carmichael, Neil
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Coe, Denis
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Moyle, Roland


Coleman, Donald
Howie, W.
Murray, Albert


Concannon, J. D.
Hoy, James
Neal, Harold


Conlan, Bernard
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Newens, Stan


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Crawshaw, Richard
Hynd, John
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby,S.)


Cronin, John
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Oakes, Gordon


Cullen, Mrs, Alice
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
O'Malley, Brian


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Janner, Sir Barnett
Oram, Albert E.


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Oswald, Thomas


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Padley, Walter


Delargy, Hugh
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Palmer, Arthur


Dewar, Donald
Jones, Fit. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Dickens, James
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Doig, Peter
Kcnyon, Clifford
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Eadie, Alex
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Pentland, Norman


English, Michael
Lawson, George
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Ennals, David
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Ensor, David
Lestor, Miss Joan
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Faulds, Andrew
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Rees, Merlyn


Fernyhough, E.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Finch, Harold
Lomas, Kenneth
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Loughlin, Charles
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lubbock, Eric
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth' stow, E.)




Rose, Paul
Tinn, James
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Urwin, T. W.
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)
Varlcy, Eric G.
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


shore, Peter (Stepney)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Witistanley, Dr. M. P.


Silverman Sydney (Nelson)
Wallace, George
Winterbottom, R. E.


Slater, Joseph
Watkins, David (Consett)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Small, William
watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)
Woof, Robert


Spriggs, Leslie
Weitzman, David
Yates, Victor


Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Welibeloved, James



Stewart, Ft. Hn. Michael
Whitaker, Ben
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Swingler, Stephen
White, Mrs. Eirene
Mr. Charles R. Morris and


Symonrts, J. B.
Whitlock, William
Mr. Ernest Armstrong.


Taverne, Dick
Wilkins, W. A.





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Onslow, Cranley


Astor, John
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Awdry, Daniel
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Heseltine, Michael
Percival, Ian


Biffen, John
Hiley, Joseph
Peyton, John


Biggs-Davison, John
Hill, J. E. B.
Pink, R. Bonner


Body, Richard
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Pym, Francis


Bullus, Sir Eric
Holland, Philip
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Burden, F. A,
Howell, David (Guildford)
Rees-Davies, w. R.


Carlisle, Mark
Hunt, John
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Carr, Rt, Hn. Robert
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Cary, Sir Robert
Iremonger, T. L.
Ridsdale, Julian


Chichester-Clark, R.
Irvine, Bryant Gudman (Rye)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Clegg, Walter
Jopling, Michael
Russell, Sir Ronald


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Scott, Nicholas


Crouch, David
Kitson, Timothy
Sharpies, Richard


Crowder, F. P.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Sinclair, Sir George


Currie, G. B. H.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Dance, James
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Summers, Sir Spencer


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Longden, Gilbert
Tapsell, Peter


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Doughty, Charles
McMaster, Stanley
Temple, John M.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maginnis, John E.
Tilney, John


Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Maude, Angus
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Errington, sir Eric
Mawby, Ray
van straubenzee, W. R.


Eyre, Reginald
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Fisher, Nigel
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Webster, David


Fortescue, Tim
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Miscampbell, Norman
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Gibson-Watt, David
Monro, Hector
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mott-Radcty ffe, Sir Charles
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Glover, Sir Douglas
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Gower, Raymond
Murton, Oscar
Worsley, Marcus


Grant, Anthony
Nabarro, Sir Gerald



Gresham Cooke, R.
Neave, Airey
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grieve, Percy
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Mr. Jasper More and




Mr. David Mitchell.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

Amendment made: No. 7, in page 3, line 32, leave out such matter' and insert:
'matter other than that permitted by the next following subsection',—[Mr. Taverne.]

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Taverne: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 3, line 35, to leave out "any of".
This is a drafting Amendment to clarify the meaning of paragraph (a) of subsection

(3), about the wording of which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) expressed some doubt in Committee, as did the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson). The restrictions on full reporting of committal proceedings are to be lifted in the case of one defendant if the justices decide not to commit him for trial. If there is more than one defendant and none is committed, again the restriction is lifted at the moment when the justices decide not to commit. But


if there are, say, three defendants and one is committed and two are not the restrictions apply until after the trial of those who are committed.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Taverne: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 3, line 42, to leave out 'the defendant or any' and to insert 'one or more'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment we may discuss Amendment No. 10.

Mr. Taverne: They are both drafting Amendments, and are concerned with restricting the application of the second part of subsection (3) to the case of joint defendants where one is tried summarily while another is sent for trial. The purpose of this part of the subsection is to prevent full reports of a summary trial in a case where, during the committal proceedings in respect of several defendants, the court decides to try summarily one or more of the defendants, but not all of them. The subsection was amended in Committee to provide that a report of committal proceedings relating to the summary trial may be published even for a part of the proceedings before the switch to summary trial was made. These drafting Amendments make the position clear.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 10, in page 3, line 44, after 'offences)', insert:
'while committing the other defendant or one or more of the other defendants for trial'. —[Mr. Taverne.]

Clause 4.—(PRIVILEGE OF NEWSPAPER REPORTS OF COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS IN LIBEL ACTIONS.)

Mr. Taverne: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 5, line 9, to leave out from 'proceedings' to 'shall' in line 13 and to insert:
'in a case where publication is permitted by virtue only of section 3(3) of this Act, published as soon as practicable after it is so permitted'.
This, again, is a drafting Amendment following an undertaking given in Committee to clear up the wording of the Clause and, in particular, its intention in relation to joint defendants. In effect, the Clause confers a privilege relating to contemporaneous reports of court proceedings to reports that have to be de-

ferred on account of the restrictions in Clause 3. It was the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) who was particularly concerned about the wording of the Clause, and I hope that he will feel that this Amendment clears up his doubts.

Sir D. Renton: I appreciate the care that has been taken to consider these improvements. I am sure that Clause 4, which was a very long, interminable one-sentence Clause, is not only shorter, but clearer and better, and I am grateful.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6.—(SIGNATURE OF DEPOSITIONS.)

Amendment made: No. 12, in page 5, line 27, leave out Clause 6.—[Mr. Taverne.]

Clause 7.—(PROOF BY WRITTEN STATEMENT.)

Amendments made: No. 13, in page 6, line 19, at end insert:
(3) The following provisions shall also have effect in relation to any written statement tendered in evidence under this section, that is to say—

(a) if the statement is made by a person under the age of twenty-one, it shall give his age;
(b) if it is made by a person who cannot read it, it shall be read to him before he signs it and shall be accompanied by a declaration by the person who so read the statement to the effect that it was so read; and
(c) if it refers to any other document as an exhibit, the copy served on any other party to the proceedings under paragraph (c) of the last foregoing subsection shall be accompanied by a copy of that document or by such information as may be necessary in order to enable the party on whom it is served to inspect that document or a copy thereof.

No. 14, in line 40, at end insert:
'and where the court so directs an account shall be given orally of so much of any statement as is not read aloud'.—[Mr. Taverne.]

Clause 9.—(NOTICE OF ALIBI).

Mr. Taverne: I beg to move Amendment No. 15, in page 8, line 2, after 'court' to insert 'adduce'.
This is a further drafting Amendment which is very necessary because by one of those mischances which occasionally afflict Standing Committees the main verb has disappeared from the Clause.


The ma in verb "adduce" is necessary and this Amendment puts it back in the Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Taverne: I beg to move Amendment No. 16 in page 8, line 29 at the end to insert:
(3) The court shall not refuse leave under this section if it appears to the court that the defendant was not informed in accordance with rules under section 15 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1949 (rules of procedure for magistrates' courts) of the requirements of this section.
This Amendment is not a drafting Amendment but one of some substance. It is proposed to fulfil an undertaking given by Committee on an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Cheadle concerning provision for a defendant to be warned by the committing court of his duty to give notice of an alibi defence. It was thought that some such provision should be made in the Bill rather than in Rules and in particular provision should be made about sanctions if the warning was not given at the proper time.
It is not entirely easy to put the whole thing in the Bill because Rules would be the proper place in which to provide for details about the name and address of a prosecuting solicitor to whom the notice should be sent and other information of that kind, but it was felt that we should meet the wishes of the Committee as a whole by this Amendment which makes clear that there is a statutory obligation to warn and also that if the warning is not given, the court cannot refuse leave to a defendant who produces a late alibi defence. I hope that the Amendment meets the practical difficulties by dividing the provisions of the Bill and the details to be provided for in the rules.

Dr. Winstanley: I do not want to appear ungrateful for what has been done. It seems that this Amendment meets the point, but it does so in a sense in a rather roundabout way. The object of the original Amendment was to see that this important change in the law whereby notice has to be given of an alibi, provided that the person was clearly informed that notice had to be given. We are now to include an arrangement whereby the person who has not been so informed shall be provided for. I agree

that this refers to the rules and the fact that warning of a alibi must be given. Since there is reference to the rules, the Amendment meets the point, although in a roundabout way.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): The next Amendment is No. 17 with which I understand the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) would like to be discussed the following Amendments: Amendment No. 23, in Clause 10, page 9, line 24, at end insert:
and where the majority verdict is a finding of guilt that each of the jurors composing the majority was satisfied of the guilt of the accused person beyond all doubt;
Amendment No. 25, in line 29, at end insert:
(4) In any case in which the jury are empowered to make a finding by majority verdict the minority of the jury shall be entitled to state briefly to the court the reasons upon which the disagreement with the majority verdict is founded;
and Amendment No. 26, in line 29, at end insert:
(5) In any case in which the jury are entitled to find a verdict of guilt by a majority it shall be the duty of the judge, recorder, commissioner of assize, or other person exercising the functions of a presiding judge clearly to direct the jury that they must arrive at such a majority verdict only when each of such majority is convinced of guilt beyond all doubt.

Mr. Hale: In deference to the almost certain wishes of the House, I can see no objection, provided I did not have to abandon my right to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to their being discussed together. I consulted the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) and he was good enough to express his agreement.

Mr. Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You said, "the next Amendment, No. 17", which relates to Clause 9. Amendments Nos. 23, 25 and 26 relate to Clause 10 and are about majority verdicts. How could those other Amendments possibly be discussed with this one?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Probably it was the next Amendment. No. 18, that the hon. Member for Oldham, West wished to have discussed with the Amendments I have mentioned. They are more appropriate to be dealt with on Amendment No. 18.

Mr. Hale: My Amendments to Clause 10 could all be included, if it suited the


House, in the discussion of Amendments to Clause 10.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think the House is clear now that we should deal with them when we discuss Amendment No. 18.

Mr. Taverne: I beg to move Amendment No. 17, in page 9, line 2, to leave out from 'alibi' to the end of line 5 and to insert:
'means evidence tending to show that by reason of the presence of the defendant at a particular place or in a particular area at a particular time he was not or was unlikely to have been at the place where the offence is alleged to have been committed at the time of its alleged commission'.
I make clear that this is a comparatively innocent Amendment and has nothing to do with majority verdicts but with the defence of alibi of which notice has to be given. This is in some ways a drafting Amendment. In some ways it is to meet a point of some substance which was raised in Committee. It is a drafting Amendment in that it makes quite clear what is meant by
evidence in support of an alibi
in the comprehensive definition. It is made quite clear that the definition should exclude from the Clause and the penalties under it a mere assertion in evidence by an accused that he was not at the scene of the crime when it was committed.
In Committee the Government gave an undertaking to consider the definition of
evidence in support of an alibi".
Some questions were raised as to what would happen if an accused said, "I just was not there", and if he were asked in cross-examination, "If you were not there, where were you?"
Both these difficulties are met by the Amendment, because it is made clear that a mere negative assertion by a defendant that he was not at the scene of the crime would not be evidence in support of an alibi. My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) asked what the position would be if, on a defendant's saying, "I was not there", he was asked in cross-examination, "Where were you?" He then would not be adducing evidence. For these reasons, the Amendment meets the case where a defendant simply denies that he was present at the scene. It is made clear that he

does not have to give notice in advance of such a denial.
If a defendant gave evidence that he was at a different place, if he gave descriptions of where the place was, if he said whom he met there, or if he described persons or things he saw there, this would come within the Clause; and it should do so, because this is precisely the sort of defence which one would want to give the prosecution a chance to check.

Mr. F. P. Crowder (Ruislip-Northwood): I am not certain to what extent the onus of proof in this instance is, as happens throughout the Bill, being placed upon the defendant, a new practice which is directly contrary to all the traditions of our criminal law. If the charge relates to an offence which took place two or three years previously, what situation would the defendant then be in?

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I am sorry to have to disagree with the assertion that the new definition meets the point I raised. I concede that it weights the previous definition a little more in favour of the position which I wanted the Government to adopt, but it does not go anything like far enough to make it clear that the position in which prosecuting counsel asks an accused, "Where were you at the time?", and in which the accused replies, "I was in the Dog and Gun'", is wholly covered by the new definition. The suggestion that such a situation would not give rise to the bringing into operation of the Clause because the accused would not there be adducing evidence, places an interpretation upon "adduce" which I find it difficult to accept.
I submit that any court would hold that an accused who gave evidence that he was at another place at the time of the commission of the crime would be adducing evidence, whether he intended to give this evidence or whether it came out in the course of cross-examination as the result of a direct question. The mere fact that an accused does not call a witness or put the evidence forward in chief does not mean that he is not adducing evidence at that stage. The point I raised in Committee has still not been met.

Mr. Crowder: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman, but I should be interested to know his view in the case of an


event so long ago that it would be virtually impossible for the defendant to adduce evidence in respect of that date.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Lyon: I take it that he would not be caught by the Clause because, if he simply said, "I do not remember where I was; it is so long ago", he would not be saying that he was in another place at a particular time. He would be caught by the Clause only when, either in answer to his own counsel or in cross-examination—

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I cannot follow this. If a man says that he was not in one place, is there not an inference that he was in some other place?

Mr. Lyon: I was willing to give the Government the benefit of the doubt in assuming that he would not be caught by the Clause, but my hon. Friend has a point there and it may well be that there is an inference. However, I tend to think, provisionally at least, that he would not be caught unless he said affirmatively at some stage of the trial that he was at a different place at the material time and gave some details of that place. It would not matter for the purposes of the Clause whether he did so in chief or in cross-examination. Once he had done it, he would be caught by the Clause. That is how I understand it.—[Interruption.] With respect, that is what the Clause is about. It is about making a defendant give notice to the prosecution of an intended defence of alibi. If the hon. and learned Gentleman disagrees with the principle of the Clause, he had his chance in Committee.
Once one accepts that it is a proper development to ask an accused person to give notice of an intended defence of alibi, at least when he proposes to call a witness, one then has to go on to ask whether he should give notice also when he alone will give evidence of alibi.
The dilemma here is that in many cases the defendant will give evidence himself almost as an afterthought, almost inadvertently, when pressed in cross-examination and when he has not given it in chief. Obviously, the Government do not want to catch that situation. They want to catch the case of the clever criminal who comes along with a carefully thought out alibi story, for which

he will not call evidence. In parenthesis, I must say that I would never call a witness in an alibi case unless I had to. My experience—others may differ—is that, if one calls witnesses to an alibi, one virtually cripples the alibi. It is always s better, if possible, to rely on the man himself.
I think that there is force in the Government's view, but if we are to elect between excluding the accused himself or including him in this rather bastardised way proposed in the Amendment, I would be in favour of saying that he should give notice only where he proposes to call witnesses in support. On the whole, I think that, unless the Government can come forward with something a bit better later on, their proposal will create great difficulties.

Mr. Carlisle: I support the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon). The Government's new Amendment on alibi improves the situation compared with what it was in the Bill, but I still say that the terms of the Clause are too wide. I have always thought that the strength of an alibi defence came when one called witnesses in support to prove that the man was somewhere else.
I have always believed that when one talks about the "sprung alibi" one means the case where one calls witnesses to support one's story that one was somewhere else. In those circumstances I believe that it is right that one should be required to give evidence and notice to the prosecution that one is calling people to prove the alibi. The Clause is still too wide because when the defendant may be merely saying, "I was not there", the court may say, as the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) said, "We must assume from that that you were elsewhere." It will catch the man who says, "I was not there. I was in the pub." The purpose which the Clause is aimed to meet is too wide and I support the hon. Member for York in hoping that the Government will still think that it is worth while looking at it again before it goes to another place.

Mr. Hale: The hon. Gentleman will recall that one cannot say, "I was not there. I was in the pub," because the jury might be teetotal. That was the problem of Frank Lockwood, who first had an


alibi saying that the chap was on the sands at Blackpool buying whelks, which was considered too frivolous; then that he was at the races; and finally that he was burying his mother-in-law, unaccompanied by the undertaker. The judge said, "That's a pretty good alibi", and Frank Lockwood declared, "It was the best of three, and it ought to be."

Mr. Carlisle: In the town which the hon. Gentleman represents I have never found any difficulty in putting forward on behalf of clients at sessions that they were in the pub rather than in the area where the offence was committed. I have never found that that met a great deal of resistance from the jury.
The danger with Clause 9 is that we are putting into the Bill provisions which may prevent a man giving evidence on his own behalf because, if he has not given notice, then without leave of the court he may not be allowed to say, "I was in the pub ", or "I was in bed", or, "I was somewhere else." Whereas I welcome the Amendment to the extent that it a least reduces the narrow definition of alibi given earlier, I still hope that the Under-Secretary of State will re-examine it and see whether the Clause could be limited to cases where one is calling witnesses in support rather than the defendant's evidence.

Mr. Taverne: I was not entirely clear from the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) whether he wanted to safeguard the answer in cross-examination or whether he was concerned about the defendant who gave alibi evidence himself, describing in circumstantial detail where he was, as opposed to stating where he was not. I should have thought that that position in the cross-examination was completely covered by the Clause. "Adduce" means to lead or bring forth evidence, and one cannot describe answers extracted under cross-examination as adducing evidence. From a practical point of view, the sanction is that the court shall not give leave that that evidence be given, but no court will stop a person giving an answer in cross-examination if he is pressed. Therefore, clearly the Clause would in no way affect a person pressed in cross-examination who then gives whatever explanation he can.
I repeat that where the defendant does give circumstantial descriptions of where he was that is precisely an example of the sort of case where one wants to give the prosecution a chance in advance to check up on it, because if it finds that the defendant was there it may well not bring the prosecution at all. If it finds pretty definitely that he was not there, that is evidence to which the prosecution should be allowed to lead at the trial.
For those reasons, the provisions about giving notice should apply to that kind of case as well as where someone calls witnesses. The hon. and learned Member for Ruislip—Northwood (Mr. Crowder) asked how that affects the onus of proof. It does not affect it in any way. It is still for the prosecution to prove its case, and it will be for the defendant to produce his evidence of alibi, if he can, to throw some doubt on that. But in the end the jury will still have to be satisfied that the accused was there. The burden does not shift in any way because of the provisions of the Clause. Whether alibi evidence is two years old, 10 years old or two days old, will make no difference whatever.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10.—(MAJORITY VERDICTS OF JURIES IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS.)

Mr. Deedes: I beg to move Amendment No. 18, in page 9, line 13, to leave out Clause 10.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): It would be for the convenience of the House if we were also to discuss Amendments Nos. 23, 25 and 26.

Mr. Deedes: I hope that the House will not think it perverse to return to a matter upon which there was such a long argument in Committee. During our proceedings 150 pages out of 1,100 were occupied upon this. It is a matter which still arouses strong, tenaciously held differences, and these have not diminished. If anything, they have tended to increase since the argument began last August when the announcement of the change was first made.
Unlike the majority of right hon., hon. and learned and hon. Members I have never addressed a jury. I have never been on a jury and I have never been tried by one, and I leave the judicial arguments


to then. The single point with which I am concerned is that the Home Secretary appears to have taken this serious decision with undue haste on insufficient grounds or alternatively, if he has evidence, he has failed to convey that evidence adequately to the House and the country. I have gone fairly thoroughly into the history of this, and I have no intention of wearying the House with it now, but it deserves an outline. Publicly, at any rate, the history of this appears to have been confined largely to last year. It was first reported in March, 1966, that Scotland Yard was investigating attempts to bribe jurors. Then in May it was widely reported that the "nobbling" of juries had become a serious matter although no detail was offered to substantiate this. The source of this appears quite clearly now to have been the policy. I am not saying that they were without total justification, but none the less they were the source of what was being said.
In June a case at the Old Bailey attracted considerable attention and on 8th August the right hon. Gentleman announced his decision in the debate we had about crime. At that time the Home Secretary spoke about a proportion of "big fish" who were getting off. How was this, he asked. It was largely because of the power to intimidate and corrupt witnesses and juries. At that time the Home Secretary spoke of mounting and formidable evidence, especially in London, that a serious situation had arisen. We heard very little more until it came to December when it came to the Second reading and the Home Secretary said then:
I am convinced, however, that all we have seen so far is the tip of a very nasty iceberg." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th December, 1966; Vol. 737, c. 61.]
So far as these remarks may be taken at their face value they seem to imply a situation calling for much more severe remedies, and action of a different kind from simply resorting to a majority verdict. In February, the Home Secretary added to the background knowledge by stating that six cases had been known to the Metropolitan Police in the succeeding three years, and the Commissioner of Police thought that he knew of more.
This was principally in London, and four other places outside of London were named. The Home Secretary also said

that he had received a letter in 1966, conveying the views of the Lord Chief Justice on the opinion of the judges. That opinion, as given to the Committee by the Home Secretary, was that as regards majority verdicts, the judges were unanimously in favour of 11 to 1, probably unanimously in favour of 10 to 2, but, beyond that, the Lord Chief Justice was not sure. With respect to both the eminent gentlemen who supplied that evidence, I am bound to say that on my information they were incorrectly informed, or opinions have changed since.
9.15 p.m.
But my explanation at present is that the majority of judges at the Old Bailey, of all places, did not favour this change. Other hon. and learned Members will, no doubt, be able to offer their own evidence. It is fair to add that, no doubt, some views have changed since this matter was first announced by the Home Secretary. I think that this offers some evidence to the thought that we are acting on insufficient evidence and consideration. A large number of, not only hon. Members, but others have changed their minds on reflection after considering the matter for three or four months.
I certainly do not belittle the evidence which the Home Secretary has tendered to hon. Members on three separate occasions. It is strong. But surely the question we have to ask is: is it strong enough to justify a change which certainly hon. and learned Members regard as a change in what has been for a long time one of the hinges of justice? This is something which goes back in. history about 600 years. That does not mean that it should not be changed. The question is: should it be changed in the light of one year's rough experience?
Nobody seems to deny that, other things being equal, the unanimous verdict is best. It is certainly best for the man who must otherwise tell his friends, "I was acquitted by 10 to 2". I would say—and I speak not as a learned Member—that we could carry the perverse juror with us on the unanimous verdict. He is no new problem. He has, I notice, been called in, to some extent, to add weight to the argument put forward in favour of majority verdicts. But I think that it is generally admitted that it is the corrupt and intimidated juror who constitutes the new and disquieting factor.
It seems to me that at least this can be said. Against comparable changes which have been made in our law in recent years and the thought given to them, this has undoubtedly been the least considered and the most hastily reached. That, I believe, is beyond argument. I hasten to add that that does not mean necessarily that it is ill-judged, but it certainly exposes itself to the charge—and indeed the charge has been made—that it is ill-judged. That is what troubles many of those who disagree with this proposal and who therefore describe it, perhaps unfairly, as a panic measure by the Home Secretary.
I am in agreement with something which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Learning-ton (Sir J. Hobson) said in earlier proceedings. When we speak about the war against crime, this particular proposal should not be called in aid. I do not think that the Home Secretary strengthens his case when he twits some of us for calling for a hotting-up of the war against crime and says that we are denying him a valuable instrument for so doing. We could effectively hot up the war against crime by rewriting the Judges' Rules as the police would like to see them rewritten, but that is not what we are proposing to do. That I would put on a par with this sort of proposal.
When the Home Secretary first spoke on this matter in August, I followed him in the debate. I said that I thought that here and elsewhere many would applaud his observations on juries, but I asked that there should be a considered presentation of his case, possibly in a White Paper. This was not done, no doubt for excellent reasons. As a result, we have reached this point with no considered document—for obvious reasons known to hon. Members we must exclude the Morris Committee—on this subject; indeed, no evidence at all outside the three speeches which have been delivered by the Home Secretary. Therefore, it is perhaps not surprising that those who, in the light of a great deal of evidence, have had reservations about this matter from the start are still unhappy.
I know that the Home Secretary— I sympathise with him—wants, as it were, to catch the tide with the Bill and not to miss the opportunity of making this

change which the Bill offers. He feels that there is urgency notwithstanding that the Bill will offer certain other safeguards against the abuses which trouble us. I am most anxious, particularly as a lay Member, not to advance an immoderate argument. I do not say that the case presented so far by the Home Secretary carries no weight. It has carried some weight, but, in my view and, I think, the view of other hon. Members, the case which the Home Secretary has so far presented has not carried such weight as to justify a change of this gravity. It is on those grounds that we seek to remove this proposal from the Bill.

Mr. Speaker: I wish the House to help me. I understand that we are taking also Amendments Nos. 23, 24, 25 and 26 in the name of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale).

Mr. Hale: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I cannot hear precisely what you are saying, but I am perfectly happy that all my Amendments to Clause 10 should be discussed on the Amendment to leave out Clause 10. On that, I would certainly want to vote.

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Member. I am left with Amendment No. 79, to leave out subsection (2). It is a question whether we take it with the present Amendment without a subsequent separate vote or whether the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) wishes to reserve the right to seek a Division on it.

Mr. Carlisle: I wish to reserve my position on Amendment No. 79, Mr. Speaker. It raises a different point which will arise if the Clause remains in the Bill.

Mr. Speaker: The House will understand that I am not seeking to dissuade any right hon. or hon. Member. It is a question of the form in which I put the Question.
The Question which I have to put to the House is, That the words proposed to be left out, to the end of line 21, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Hale: I put down Amendments to the Clause particularly because, with great deference and respect to the very able discussion in Committee, it seemed to me that in all the very able speeches that were made, a question in relation to


the onus of proof had not been fully put. I refer to relation of the jury to the onus of proof. I take the Clause seriously. While I shall, I hope, not use unnecessarily the time of the House, I have not the slightest intention of curtailing some of the things which I have been wanting for a considerable time to say about this proposal.
We are told that the jury came over with the Conqueror, that it is part of the Salic law, that it passed to Normandy and that William the Bastard brought it over. As far as I know, however, it bore no relation of any kind to a jury of today until about the fourteenth century. From that time, for several centuries, the jury was regarded with peculiar horror by Her Majesty's judges, who devised every means of persecuting a jury, because a fury was regarded as a rather democratic institution intruding themselves into an eminently legal and specialised organisation.
We are told, not with any certitude, that the original practice if a jury disagreed was to appoint additional jurymen and to carry on with the trial again, going all through the evidence.
This has been open to some discussion, but whatever it is, and whatever has been the position, for centuries juries were sent out without light or food or heat or comfort, and as Lord Denning said in a recent speech, without a chamber pot, and asked to come to a decision when constrained to do so by the pressure on the stomach or on the bowels. And right up to the eighteenth century in Ireland, certainly within my historical recollection, a jury could be carted to the boundaries of the county, and if they had not agreed by the time they got to the county boundary, they were dumped out and left to walk home.
It was not a popular institution in certain elevated quarters, and the fact that juries have stood for liberty all this time, and over all these centuries, is something that this House of all places in the world should never forget. We should never forget the battle against the old libel laws until we got Fox's libel Acts and the case of the Addington repression was a battle between the jury and the judiciary.
Through the courtesy of Lord Denning and the publishers I have received a copy

of the very able and brilliant speeches he made on many subjects. I am not sure that I am entitled to quote them, but I am entitled to quote what has appeared in The Times. He referred to the Northamptonshire case of 1370 when one juryman said, "I would rather die than record a verdict against my conscience". This was England, and this was the tradition of England. This was one of the glories of England, and it was one of the admirations of England among all the countries of the world. When has a dictatorship had a jury? How quickly after a dictatorship is established do they abolish the jury system?
I do not think that anyone will contravene what I say on the mode of proof. A jury is not 12 men on the top of a Clapham bus. A jury, if I may use a homely and almost vulgar metaphor from horticulture, is a collection of 12 odds and sods, some squares, some triangles, some little bits here, and some there as one re-lays the lawn. Politically speaking, there are four Socialists perhaps, three Conservatives, one Liberal, and three don't knows. But this is it. This is the raison d'être, however it may sound. This is it. We collect 12 average men, good and true, good men we hope, true men we hope, but they are not supposed to be very bright. They are not supposed to be lawyers. In fact they are not allowed to be. They are not allowed to be experts. They are just a dozen decent chaps drawn together to try to do justice as they see it.
What are they called on to do? The first proposition was put forward in the fourteenth century by our old friend William of Occam, Occam's Razor, entia (or essentia) non Stint multiplicanda praetor necessitatem.
Juries are expected to accept the legitimate reasonable explanation. William was talking about nominalism as a philosophical conception, but it has become embodied into all our law of proof that if there is a simple, effective, convincing explanation, we do not go out of the ambit of that simple explanation to chase possibilities or remote chances of finding something else. We accept it because the safety is in the 12, and this is the point about the 12. Every judge now rules in almost identical terms, "You must not be afflicted by vague doubts. You must not


worry about hesitations. We know that we cannot convince you beyond any possibility of remote doubt that this crime was committed by the accused. The most that we can do is to present to you, as 12 men, an overwhelming apparent probability from the evidence. Do not be worried," says the judge, "Take as a test the sort of standard of conviction which would apply to you in any ordinary important affair of your life".
A couple of years ago, as an ordinary important event in my life, I read in a Sunday newspaper an article to the effect that shares in the electronics industry would rise dramatically now that Frank Cousins was handling them, with the Prime Minister's passion for technology.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is an appropriate moment to interrupt the hon. Member.

It being half-past Nine o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Criminal Justice Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Roy Jenkins.]

Question again proposed, That the words proposed to be left out, to the end of line 21, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Hale: For the moment I was all of a dither, Mr. Speaker. I hasten to say that I am quoting a genuine example concerning the standard of proof. I read the article and I invested in Pye shares. This was one of the decisions that a person takes in his life. It could have had a serious impact on my future. I think that at the time the shares stood at £1, but they went down to about 5s. 6d. in 12 months.
I am serious about this, even if I have quoted an example which has not inspired the sympathetic interest that I hoped it would from all parts of the House. It is a question of the standards that we employ in coming to an important decision in our lives. That is the standard of proof that a jury applies. The protection is that there has to be unanimity among the 12. If there is a doubt, the person concerned must not be deprived of his reputation, his security, his liberty and his family.
The Clause legitimates the doubt, and exalts it. I do not want to say a discourteous word to my right hon. Friend because he has always been very courteous. He has produced these provisions with great ability. He has produced some very impressive ones. But 1 must point out that never before in the history of Parliament has there been a provision undermining the constitution of the nation, the liberties of the people and a system of justice that, with all its faults, is the envy of the world, on less evidence, with less consideration, and with a more complete absence of reasoning in its support.
I am sorry that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) is not here. I have never thought it necessary to say that one might refer on Report to what another hon. Member said in Committee, but in Committee there was a tendency for more than one hon. Member to assume ex ipso facto that a minority of one was an obstinate idiosyncratic, odd individual who was standing against the current of modern thought. All history shows that that is not true. We do not know what happens in the jury room, and I do not suppose that it would be a good thing if we did. [Interruption.] I always listen to the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) with a great deal of respect and regard, but we should not start to examine one of the bulwarks of our unwritten constitution through a microscope.
I was asked by a Frenchman some time ago to tell me about the Royal Princes. I said, "If you take a synthesis of His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, the noble Lord, Lord Snowdon and Angus Ogilvie and amalgamate their qualities, you may be able to visualise precisely what you have in mind." He said something about liquorice allsorts. There is an infinite variety.
So it is with a jury. Out of the 12 there may be two members of the Church of England, two Catholics, three Protestants, three Agnostics, one Seventh Day Adventist, one Spiritualist and so on—I have forgotten how many that adds up to. They must all agree. It may well be that one dominates over the others. But from all the history and from what we know about juries we can conclude that one able, sincere man who says, "I am


not convinced, and I shall not shift. I will not send a man to prison for a long term unless I am convinced", is much more likely to influence half a dozen to change their view than the other way round.
Of course it is true as well—and all our history shows this—that if the jury are 11 to one in favour of acquittal, they become unanimous. It is not often that anyone stands up on an issue of principle if the overwhelming majority is in favour of acquittal. It is when a man says, "I will not take part in a miscarriage of justice".
I am rather surprised that some of the classic cases have not been recalled. I recall the Peasenhall case, a rather strange case, when there was very strong evidence against the accused. There was a remote possibility of accident, which is now much more seriously accepted by modern experts than it was by the experts of that day. We know the figures in that case—we do not normally know, because in England they are not announced, although they often are in American States where series of ballots are taken. But in that case we know the figures, which in the first trial were 11 for conviction and one for acquittal.
The second trial was within four months when the same counsel was defending and the same counsel prosecuting. There was probably the same sort of jury, so far as we know, but there was a different judge. The first trial was by Mr. Justice Grantham and the second was by Mr. Justice Lawrance. Grantham had many virtues, but not eminently judicial virtues. No one can be quite certain, but it is said that at that second trial there were 11 for an acquittal and one for a conviction. So it was nolle prosequi and Mr. Gardner disappeared from human knowledge, perhaps into the wilds of London, one does not know.
Under the new Amendment he would have been hanged. Although there was very strong suspicion against him—and I would not underestimate the strength of the case against him—every skilled writer on the subject has said that there was just not enough evidence. There was just enough doubt to say that there must not be a conviction.
It has been said that if the system has worked in Scotland for a hundred years,

it is all right. Not having a very extensive reference library at home, last night I turned up the case of Madeleine Smith. This case, of course, is relevant to another point. In his letter to The Times my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) said something about how we must examine our institutions from time to time. Of course we must and we have been constantly doing so. In my time we have abolished the grand jury and the special jury and during the war we introduced a smaller number of jurors and we have also substantially abolished the use of juries in civil cases and so on. This has been a subject under constant review. It is well worth remembering that this human institution of 12 people is also capable of developing with the times. It does not have the old prejudices. It does not have to listen to judges with some of the old prejudices, and it does not have to take too much notice of them if it does.
Frankly, I think that the evidence against Madeleine Smith was overwhelming, but the jury's decision was two guilty and 13 not proven. Though the judges were very fair in excluding, on what I regard as unsubstantial grounds, the evidence which was strongest against her, she was of course, exposed to the contumely of the judges and to constant criticism on the ground that she had surrendered herself, as the term was, to her lover, not in the sanctity of the bond of marriage, not in the discreetly curtained double bed, not even on the hurly-burly of the chaise-longue, but under the open sky in the sight of Heaven and, what is worse, she had written to say that she liked it.
What could happen to her later when she left the court with two of the jury having said that she was guilty and 13 having said that it was not proven, damned as a prostitute by the virtuous people of Edinburgh, by purple-faced judges suppurating from a strangulated hernia of the vocal organs in their indignation, while the people of Glasgow were queuing up to the junior clerk of assize and paying a quid a time to be allowed to read through the salacious letters? I am at least happy to see that the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) is not here, or I should get into trouble about this.
These are the cases. There is a plaque at the Old Bailey commemorating the jury which stood up for William Penn, which said, "You can imprison us, you can fine us, we will appeal—but you will not change our minds." Even the Old Bailey commemorates that with a plaque in memory of the great hero of Bushell's case. At the end of the 17th century, the juries fought the battles of religious freedom and refused to convict William Penn in three succesive trials at which the Lord Chief Justice himself came along to secure a conviction—

Mr. Daniel Awdry: The hon. Member is giving us a great history lesson going back over the years. Will he address himself to the modern problem of jurors who are bullied and threatened?

Mr. Hale: The right hon. Gentleman has come from time to time and said that jurors are being bribed. Of course they always were. They used to be bribed by the Government of the day. The most attractive of the Irish Chief Justices was notoriously known every where as "Peter the Packer", and if Peter the Packer could not put in the box a jury which would convict, nobody could.
But what evidence is there? When all is said and done, I say to my right hon. Friend with great respect and regard, that the job of law enforcement is to detect that offence and punish it. It is not to alter our liberties and constitution on the evidence of a couple of vague cases, one of which I believe has already passed into the miasma.
The hon. Gentleman said that I have given a lesson in history. I would not have presumed for a moment to do so: I have come here to learn. If he wants us to talk about the modern problem, I refer to The Times newspaper, which is now under new management and bright and effective ownership, which has rebuked my right hon. Friend very strongly for the precipitancy with which this Clause was introduced, about the lack of evidence. It said—it calls for comment —that, in the course of one of his very able speeches, there came a point at which, somehow, he became less forceful and less convincing. There came a point at which the argument could not be made.
The Times published some figures from America. I am not a Dr. Gallup fan and I am not greatly impressed by figures or comparisons. The sort of figures which one gets from different American States never impress me—about capital punishment or anything else. But one point which was made, because it had been made in argument, was that they said that in Oregon, I think, where there is a 10–2 verdict, the moment that verdict is reached, proceedings close down and the 10–2 verdict is recorded and they send a chap out with the public intimation that two people thought he was guilty, even if 10 thought that he was innocent.
What do you do if you are a solicitor, or clergyman, or doctor, or, we will say, a public officer, or employed at the town hall? If you are sent back to the town hall with 10 people saying, "We are not convinced that this man buggered a lad of 14, but two thought that he did and were prepared to send him up for 10 years for it," where is his future? Where is our tradition of justice? Once that has been done, we have clearly destroyed the foundation.
No one has ever answered that proposition. The Times article, which Mr. Blom-Cooper wrote from the Temple, said that the great protection in America was the system of challenge. I found this the most extraordinary argument. I have read for a long time—and I have read some strange letters in The Times recently. One knows, of course, that the great, expensive advocates of America flex their biceps in prolonged challenges to the jury asking whether they are "Pink" or Red or pre-Shinwell resignation or post-Shinwell resignation or what their views are on this or that.
9.45 p.m.
There is a different state of affairs which they have over there. If one is a highly paid advocate who is defending the nephew of a Mafiosi who has taken the oath of Omerta and who is paying 100,000 dollars a year to the public attorney or to the Governor of the State and who is living with a lady who was in one of "Lucky Luciano's" whorehouses —as they call them over there—there is a clear necessity for getting a jury composed of ladies of Italian birth who are married to corrupt police constables.


One knows what one wants. I am glad that that condition does not obtain here.
I do not want to detain the House, but I want to put the case. There was a famous case in which the jury tried to deal with the situation. The facts, so far as I know, are not known. This was the case of a lady who was defended by Sir Edward Clarke on a charge of having poisoned her husband with chloroform and the medical evidence was that one could not administer that dose of chloroform, because he would have vomited it up. What was her name? Clarke was cheered at the theatre on his brilliant success.
Ultimately, on a special verdict—technically an improper verdict—the jury found that there was grave suspicion against the lady, but said that they had come to the conclusion that there was not sufficient evidence to justify a finding of guilt.
As it happens, only one competent research writer has ever placed the facts on record. I am quoting from a book by the hon. Member for Oldham, West. The members of the jury were most indignant at the criticisms of their verdict. It was said that their verdict was an example of an ignorant jury casting a slur on the lady. The foreman of the jury wrote a letter to The Times saying, in effect, "When we retired we were 11 to one in favour of an acquittal. One man refused to budge. Having seen this lady suffering under the burden of a trial for murder day after day, the question we had to consider was whether we would do her less harm by recording a verdict of acquittal, with some slur on her character—which the one man who refused to budge would agree to because he would not agree to a verdict of not guilty—or whether we should put her to the shame and public anxiety of a second trial."
Who would like to say, in that dilemma, what should be done? It was certainly, if not a legal, a sensible, human and kindly thing to say, "The lady should go free and be relieved from this burden and worry." So the jury recorded a verdict of acquittal, and a unanimous verdict at that. [Interruption.] What could the jury do? What could a jury do now? It would still have to record a verdict of acquittal, but

just the same slur would remain. Even so—

Mr. Speaker: There is a juryman who keeps wanting to interrupt.

Mr. Hale: I am obliged for your protection, Mr. Speaker. The position I have outlined is the one we face today. Here alone—at any rate, almost alone in the world; I cannot speak for some of the Scandinavian countries with complete accuracy—we maintain this institution which everyone else envies and which every established dictatorship abolishes the moment democracy begins to cease to function. In this we are almost alone, a tribute to the integrity of the English people.
I forget the exact figures, but I understand my right hon. to have said that in bribery only two out of 100 cases—I understand these to be selected figures from the Central Criminal Court; but I am quoting from memory—is there disagreement, so that in about 45 per cent. of cases there are acquittals, in about 45 per cent. of cases there are convictions and in about 10 per cent. of cases there are disagreements, the jury being unable to reach a decision.
It is a curious English habit that our verdicts are normally recorded very quickly. I wish to quote from the case to which Lord Denning referred in his lecture and to which I referred in my book. It is interesting, although it relates to 1670. It is just as true today. How many of us who have lived in the courts have felt able to say to our clients when the jury has retired what we think the verdict will be? How many of us have dared ever say, "You are virtually certain to be acquitted"? How many of the attractive novelists who write the life stories of some of our great advocates have commented, "They always wait to see whether the jury look into the eyes of the defendant; and if they do, there will be a verdict of not guilty". How many of us have said to our clients, "On the evidence presented to us, we think that you should be acquitted, but we can make no promises"?
If we find ourselves in doubt, why should not the jury be in doubt? I make this point even though, in a sense, it argues somewhat against my argument. I suggest that juries do not disagree often enough. The facts are so often in doubt


that they are bound to disagree on occasion, and this is a small price to pay for the preservation of justice. Juries should make sure that they are absolutely satisfied before they send a fellow to damnation, to imprisonment, to loss of character, reputation, home and freedom.
When Edward Bushell, the juryman to whom I referred in the case of Penn and Mead, expressed his view, Chief Justice Vaughan said:
I would know whether anything be more common than for two men students, barristers or judges, to deduce contrary and opposite conclusions out of the same case in law? And is there any difference that two men should infer distinct conclusions from the same testimony?…How then comes it to pass that two persons may not apprehend with reason and honesty, what a witness, or many, say, to prove in the understanding of one plainly one thing but in the apprehension of the other, clearly the contrary thing?
Is not that our experience in this House? Was not that our experience in Committee—a majority verdict of two with half the Committee abstaining? This the conflict of view and the conflict that comes out of an honest expression of opinion.
I beg my right hon. Friend to reconsider his policy in relation to Clause 10 and to say, "One should not introduce so enormous a change in the face of such strong opposition". He should say that even if, by issuing the Whip on this side, he can take into the Lobby more hon. Members than will go into the other Lobby because, I understand, no Whip has been issued on the benches opposite he will take time to reconsider a vital decision.

Mr. Crowder: Tonight, we are discussing a matter which has stood the test of time and the test of centuries, and no one could have put the case more eloquently, if I may say so, than the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale). One always listens to anything he has to say in regard to the law and history with the greatest possible attention. But I hope this evening that although we are discussing something that affects the liberty of the subject we will do it on a strictly non-political basis. There should be a free vote, on both sides.
I have noted with interest and admiration the pains which the Home Secretary has taken to go into this matter. I think that I am right in saying that he does

not have the advantage, or it may be the disadvantage, of ever having been a solicitor, of ever having been a judge, or of ever having been at the Bar. He has probably never been in a court at all as a defendant, or anything like that, though he may have gone to listen. What the right hon. Gentleman has to listen to are words of advice.
During the Committee stage the Home Secretary did something which has not only caused great interest but has literally swayed public opinion through the whole country. He quoted a letter from possibly one of his chief advisers in the matter—no less a person than the Lord Chief Justice of England, in which the Lord Chief Justice said:
As regards majority verdicts, I can safely say that all judges would be in favour of them.
The Home Secretary was quoting, quite properly, the words of the Lord Chief Justice of England. Naturally, any layman reading that sort of thing in the Press would be tremendously moved by it, because the Lord Chief Justice is supposed to know what is going on.
Naturally, I immediately made inquiries. I went straight away to see a judge at the Old Bailey, and asked him: "Is there any truth in this?". He said, "None whatever. If you want to know, I was astounded by that statement which seems to have pushed the Home Secretary into this move, and I had my clerk look up the last year's figures. Out of 117 cases in my court at the Old Bailey there were four disagreements, every one of which in my view was fully justified as the cases were extremely difficult. On subsequent retrial, two of the defendants concerned were acquitted."
The following day, off I go to assizes. The two High Court judges were kind enough to invite me to luncheon, and asked me: "What is this nonsense which the Home Secretary is putting before the country through the words of the Lord Chief Justice? We are both "and they were High Court judges: "dead against this."
I have been at the Old Bailey today, People come to one from every corner and ask, "How can the Home Secretary be influenced by this sort of thing? How can the Lord Chief Justice come out with remarks like that? Is the Lord Chief Justice consulting the judges?"


Is it the situation that every one knows that the Lord Chief Justice is in favour of this Clause, and it so happens that those judges who know it and are in agreement with it have written to him and said so and the Lord Chief Justice has, quite honestly and with the utmost integrity, formed the view which was quoted by the Home Secretary, which, of course, is absolutely untrue:
As regards majority verdicts, I can safely say that all judges would be in favour of them.
Those words were in the letter which the Home Secretary quoted in the Standing Committee—he will correct me if I am wrong.
After all, the right hon. Gentleman is in the position of having to rely on advice. He has never practised at the Bar and does not know the inner workings of the courts. It is quite incredible that some one in a responsible position like the Lord Chief Justice should write a letter of that sort unless "all the judges" means those judges who have been consulted in the matter, and have happened to move the Home Secretary in this way. In this matter, one would expect the Home Secretary to move like this if some one like the Lord Chief Justice writes to him in those terms. It may well be that before the matter came to be discussed many more judges were in favour of it than there are today. My view is that at the Bar quite a lot of people were in favour of the Home Secretary's idea, but every day literally one finds opinion changing. There was not a dissentient voice among those I met at the Central Criminal Court today when they asked me, "What are you going to do about it? How on earth can this be stopped?"
10.0 p.m.
I listened with the greatest attention to the hon. Member for Oldham, West giving historical allusions. I am concerned with the reality of the situation. I do not know whether the House is aware that at the moment judges are encouraging juries to behave almost as a committee and as a composite body. If a jury has been out for some time and comes back and says that it finds difficulty in agreeing, there is now a leading case which is usually read out by most judges to the jury. What is said is this:

You are a body of 12 men. Each of you has taken an oath to return a true verdict according to the evidence, but of course you have a duty not only as individuals but collectively. No one must be false to their oath, but in order to return a collective verdict, the verdict of you all, there must necessarily be argument and a certain amount of give and take and an adjustment of views within the scope of the oath you have taken. It makes for great public inconvenience and expense if jurors cannot agree owing to the unwillingness of one of their number to listen to the arguments of the rest. Having said that, I cannot say more. If you disagree in your verdict you must say so.
That judgment was upheld in the Court of Criminal Appeal.
Juries feel that in a sense they are a composite body, a committee, a family. They owe a duty to one another, but under this new scheme four jurymen may say, "We want to find this man not guilty". The foreman of the jury will then say, "On this 10 to two nonsense two of you have to give way." Suppose the Home Secretary and I are two of the number. We might say, "In accordance with Clause 10 not only have we a right, we have a duty to disagree which is given to us. The effect of being a member of this composite body, this team or committee has gone. Why should we be the two to give way? Why should not those other two give way?" The result would be that we would get disagreement after disagreement.
This thing has been running extremely well for centuries. I know that majority verdicts are not allowed. There was an occasion at Hertfordshire Quarter Sessions a short time ago—I am happy to say that I did not try the case—when the jury came back and was asked, "How do you find?" They found not guilty and when asked, "Is that the verdict of you all?" a juryman said, "No, it certainly is not" and it turned out to be seven to five. I cannot tell the House of the consternation that resulted. The whole matter had to be tried again.
While we have this committee situation it works in the same way as the House of Commons and another place work. It may be quite illogical, but it works. This Bill is putting it on the same basis as introducing P.R. when it is not necessary at all. The analogy is almost on the same basis. All that will happen will be disagreement after disagreement. The Home Secretary, through no fault of his own, after making a very close study of the


matter, naturally accepted the advice of the Lord Chief Justice. He is doing his best to improve something as one would seek to improve a Rolls Royce engine when it is working properly. Why not leave it alone when it is working?
Is there any evidence to show that juries are nobbled or got at in the provinces? There may be cases—only one or two—in which juries have been nobbled or got at in the Central Criminal Court. If a gang gets hold of one man and obtains a disagreement, the case is tried again. One hopes that it is not a long case. It may be a two-day case. It may be a three-day case. The eventual result is nearly always a conviction. I cannot see any reason for upsetting a system which has withstood the test of centuries.
I must not in any way speak sub judice, but may I put this to the House. Hon. Members will have read the papers. Let us suppose that a police officer were to be tried at the Central Criminal Court on a charge of bribery. Let us suppose that the jury were to disagree. Let us suppose that the verdict was an acquittal on the basis of 10 to 2. What would be the situation of that police officer? What would be the situation of a public man from the City? It would be utterly impossible. I do not know of any other situation, particularly in this country, which believes in democracy, where a person's honour and integrity can be tried by a majority verdict.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I want to begin by asking my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary whether he himself has asked Her Majesty's Judges of the High Court if they are in favour of this proposed change or not. I am not asking him what hearsay evidence he has received from the Lord Chief Justice or from anybody else. I am asking him whether he himself, as he would clearly have a right to do, has asked the Judges of the High Court: "Yes or No, do you want this change?" I would like the Home Secretary to tell us this, because I think that we would all be influenced by the answer, more particularly if it turned out that the letter from the Lord Chief Justice upon which the Home Secretary relied earlier was mistaken.
My next comment follows directly upon something said by the hon. and

learned Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Crowder). Some judges are acting as though this change in the law had already been made. I cite two cases. An appeal was heard only a week ago in the Criminal Appeal Division of the Court of Appeal in which a convicted man complained that the summing up was defective in that the judge had misdirected the jury, because he had failed to tell them that their verdict ought to be unanimous.
I should have thought, in my innocence, that this was a perfectly sound complaint to make. The Lord Chief Justice, presiding over that court, giving the judgment of the court—I do not say that he was speaking only for himself; but it happened that he was the vehicle through which the judgment was given—dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was no longer necessary to tell a jury that its verdict ought to be unanimous.
I think that we are reaching a stage now when the Lord Chancellor might direct the attention of all Her Majesty's Judges to the fact that, although they are just as free as anybody else is to advocate changes in the law, they are not entitled to administer the law as though the change of which they are in favour has already been made.
I want to cite another case. At the moment, until Parliament agrees to a change, unless a verdict is in fact unanimous it is no verdict. There was a recent case in the Court of Criminal Appeal—I think that it was the Court of Criminal Appeal and not the Criminal Appeal Division of the Court of Apeal—in which a convicted defendant sought to have the conviction quashed on the ground that the verdict was not in fact unanimous. He had to prove that, of course. Otherwise, there was no basis for his complaint. In order to prove it, he produced a member of the jury, who swore an affidavit. He asked the Court of Criminal Appeal to let her give evidence and be cross-examined and make up their own mind whether she was telling the truth.
In her evidence, this lady said, "I never agreed to this conviction. When the foreman said 'Guilty', and he was asked, 'And that is the verdict of you all?', to which he replied, 'Yes', he was wrong. It was not the verdict of us all. I disagreed. I was afraid to say anything in court. I did not know how to say anything at that stage. I did not know what


to do or where to go. After the sentence was passed, I went out of court and went straight to the man's wife to apologise to her for not interfering".
The Court of Criminal Appeal decided that that evidence was not worth listening to. It did not care whether the verdict was unanimous or not; so long as the foreman had said that it was unanimous, the court was satisfied, not thinking that it was any of its business to find out whether the truth was being told or not.

Mr. Carlisle: I agree with the general view which the hon. Gentleman is expressing, but is he not being unfair in that case? The difficulty was that the woman admitted that she had agreed with the rest but later regretted that she had been persuaded to do so. She had allowed herself to go along with the unanimous verdict. That is why the Court of Criminal Appeal said that it would not interfere.

Mr. Silverman: I think that there is something in what the hon. Gentleman says, though I do not think that it was quite put in the way he put it. She said that she agreed, but she said that she was intimidated and bullied into agreeing. That is why she regretted it, and then swore an affidavit, wanting to withdraw. It was not that she had ever genuinely agreed.
During the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), one hon. Gentleman opposite talked about the people being intimidated. They are not always intimidated in favour of acquittal. They are sometimes intimidated in favour of conviction. No one who has practised in the criminal courts for any length of time is unaware that there are cases of that kind from time to time. It is not always the friend of the criminal who intimidates the jury. Sometimes it is the prosecution.
There are ways of preventing this kind of thing. As my hon. Friend said, there was a time when the jury was locked up, not allowed to go home or to do anything until they reached a decision, a unanimous decision. If there is any real ground for fearing that people who are allowed to move about may be intimidated, corrupted or bribed, the answer is not to change the law but to ensure that no one has the opportunity to interfere, to bully, to intimidate or to bribe a juror.

It is easy to arrange. We succeeded in arranging it throughout centuries. What are we afraid of now?
It seems to me that the virtue which the verdict of a jury has rests upon its unanimity. This is what gives it validity, not the fact that the jurors all say the same thing for different reasons, or something of that kind. What is important is that, after the argument, when everything has been said by both sides that each wishes to say, when the judge has given directions on the law and has summed up the evidence, when the jurors have retired to consider their verdict and have had their own discussions and arguments, at the end of the day they are all content to say, "Yes" or "No". That is what gives validity to the verdict of a jury, not the accident or agreement among 12 individuals who may he picked out on the street corner at any moment.
10.15 p.m.
My right hon. Friend said earlier this afternoon that this was not a take-it-or-leave-it Bill. The House was free, exercising its own conscientious judgment, to reject any point with which it was not satisfied. I appeal to him to apply that criterion to himself. Is he really satisfied, at the end of the argument, that the case for making this fundamental change in the criminal law has really been made out? Does he really think that no further inquiry and discussion are necessary, that we can throw aside the practice of the last 600 years on the basis of the kind of argument that has been offered here, unexamined, uncriticised, unco-ordinated, unrelated and virtually undiscussed, and that we can go on making these changes because the decision in two cases in a hundred may have resulted from somebody's illegitimate interference?
If there were no other way of dealing with illegitimate interference, a case might be made out for the proposal, but even then it would be necessary to show that the mischief one was trying to cure was substantial and not an occasional thing that happened now and again. God knows where and how. The case for the proposal has not been made out and I beg my right hon. Friend not to spoil the magnificent record he is building up as the most progressive Home Secretary we have had for many years by this foolish thing at the dictation of a


Lord Chief Justice who seems to me to know nothing about the criminal law.

Dr. Winstanley: I shall try to be as brief as I can, for I had a go in Committee and many hon. Members want to have a go tonight. What is the Clause intended to do? We gather from repeated statements by the Home Secretary that it is to do away with intimidation and corruption of jurors as far as possible, and that we can do that only by reducing the number of disagreements or the number of acquittals by second disagreements.
How often do those things happen? I am informed that the present number of disagreements is about 3·7 per cent. On subsequent retrial, the breakdown of those disagreements comes in the ratio of four-two-one, as between conviction, acquittal and second disagreement. Working out the calculation from those figures shows that the proportion of acquittals secured by second disagreements is one in 175.
How many of those disagreements fall within the figures the Home Secretary has in mind? How many fall within the ten-two or eleven-one disagreement? Is it not likely that the vast majority are in fact nearer nine-three, eight-four or seven-five? If one takes that point into consideration, the figure will not be one in 175 but one in a much larger figure, perhaps one in 400, 500 or even more.
If it is one in 400 or 500, how many have been secured by corruption, bribery or intimidation? People do disagree from time to time. The Home Secretary has done something very desirable in a later Clause, which will make it illegal for a person who has previously served a prison sentence to serve on a jury. Removing those people will not only remove those most likely to be subjected to corruption and intimidation but also those with an innate tendency to disagree, and it will therefore meet part of the problem.
Returning to the figures, the percentage of cases which this Measure will affect must be infinitesimal. This is a terribly marginal matter, to do something which, from the discussions that we have had, would quite clearly cause great distress and worry, whatever be its practical effects. People will be worried. There is no doubt in my mind that if we em-

bark on this procedure it will weaken public confidence in the jury system. This point has been referred to by a number of hon. Members, in particular by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale).
There is the question of the burden of proof. As I have always understood it, we have endeavoured to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. What we are now saying is that there is only two-twelfths of a doubt, and therefore it is all right for the person to be guilty. In other words, we are defining a reasonable doubt as two-twelfths. I am sure that this will weaken public confidence in the system. Next it will clearly breach the secrecy of the jury room.
Once it is announced, as it will be announced, that a person has been found guilty or acquitted by ten to two, the two will hasten to say why they disagreed with the others. They will go to some length to say that they were right, that the man was guilty and that the others were wrong. Before we know it, the issues involved will be bandied about.

Sir D. Renton: There seems to be nothing in the law which would prevent juries from being interviewed by newspapers after they had disagreed.

Dr. Winstanley: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I see no limitation at all. I want to make the brief point that once one has a majority verdict, these people in the minority will be anxious to explain and justify themselves, and by doing so they will cast further doubt on the validity of the verdict which, if it had been a unanimous verdict, the public would have been willing to accept.
Another point is that the one juror who stands out, may very well be right. It may not always be the case but he will now stand out. The immediate effect will be for the majority to sit it out until the necessary time has gone. The procedure which goes on at present when there is an argument within the jury will cease once one has arrived at a ten to two position. Why should the two struggle? The jury will have arrived at a decision which will be regarded as satisfactory. For these, and a whole variety of reasons, I believe that this will be an unsatisfactory measure.
I believe also that the Home Secretary has not yet, even at this eleventh hour, demonstrated a real need for a change. If the need has not been demonstrated, there can be no point in doing this. Secondly I believe that all manner of disadvantages have been demonstrated, as a result of adopting this procedure. Therefore, I very much hope that the Home Secretary will think again, and

perhaps think of another method, a different route by which he can attack the question of corruption.
Surely he can, in those special cases, and he has told us that he recognises which are the kinds of cases likely to be affected, simply lock those particular juries up and have a different process, rather than alter the whole basis of the law in this way.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: The House has heard persuasive speeches against this Clause. I was much impressed, as I know all hon. Members were, by the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) which was a moving and able speech. The arguments are strong, and to my mind this is a very narrowly balanced issue. My hon. Friend may be right but I am not entirely convinced. Very briefly, I want to put my reasons for saying that before the House. The concept of unanimity of the 12 jurors is of immense value and importance in our system of justice. It gives an edge and weight to a verdict. The unanimous verdict possesses an imponderable and unmistakably quality. I acknowledge that. It is very valuable. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West that the fact that it has stood and prospered for so long is a circumstance in its favour. That makes it the more desirable that we should be very careful before we propose any change.
But that is not the whole of the picture with which the House has to deal. We have a phenomenon which belongs to our own time—a special set of circumstances. We are going through—it can be exaggerated, but it can also be underestimated—a period of large-scale crime. Threats to society, large-scale crime and protection rackets are I should have thought, on an objective view, a distinctive and exceptional feature of our period.

Sir Douglas Glover: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman really saying that, because our society cannot control the evildoer, people should be found guilty who otherwise would have been found not guilty?

Mr. Irvine: That is not the point which I am seeking to develop. In balancing one thing with another, and in taking into account the force and admitted strength of the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and of those who share his point of view, we are entitled to have regard to contemporary circumstances—the threats to society which are peculiar in our time. As I was saying, it is easy enough to exaggerate them, but it is also easy enough to underestimate their importance.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: rose—

Mr. Irvine: I do not think I should give way. Perhaps my hon. Friend will forgive me. I do not wish to take up too much time.
We must have regard to the social phenomena of which I speak. The House is in a congenial and well disposed frame of mind, as is often the case when it considers matters of historical importance. But it must realise that one of the realities of our time is large-scale crime and the rich master-mind organisers of crime. If my hon. Friend the Home Secretary is satisfied—and, after all, he is in a very advantageous position to discover the facts and to weigh the importance of these matters—that there is a contemporary situation which calls for a change to take account of this phase in our social history, my view is that the House should be extremely careful before it disregards his advice. As I said, it is a narrowly balanced issue. I only want to let the House know where I stand.
When we were considering this matter in Committee, once one acknowledged that it was desirable, because of the contemporary situation, that there should be some modification of a well respected and well established tradition, one wanted to reduce the effect of the change—to take account of the reality as one saw it but to make the change as slight and as restricted as possible. It was with that aim in view that I favoured introducing the element of judicial discretion, to be exercised only in the event of a ten to two majority for a conviction, when the judge would be able to say that he would not accept the majority verdict. In exercising that discretion, the judge would have in mind the character of the charge, the character of the trial and the extent to which, if at all, the class of case with which he was concerned was one which was susceptible to the contemporary real danger of nobbling and corruption.
10.30 p.m.
I got no response from the Government to that argument. I expressed the point of view and I still think I was right. That being so, I now have to have regard to the Bill as it comes to the House on Report. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West may well be right. This is a narrowly balanced affair. On the other hand, we should not be dog-in-the-manger even on matters of principle, because against the value and worth of the


tradition of unanimity in jury trials we have to balance this inescapable feature of our period of history in which the danger of the nobbled jury and the danger of corruption from sources which are extremely powerful and rich should not, and cannot reasonably by this House, be under-estimated.
My disposition, therefore, is, not without doubt and not without anxiety, to support this Clause when the matter comes to be determined.

Mr. Grieve: I do not know what arrangements—

Sir D. Glover: On a point of order. Could the House be informed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether any hon. Member who did not serve on the Standing Committee on the Bill is likely to be called in this debate? So far, no hon. Member has been called who was not a member of the Committee.

Mr. Hogg: That is not in accordance with the facts. Neither the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) nor the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman), nor one or two of the hon. Members who have spoken, served on the Committee. That should not go without correction.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): In any event, selection is a matter for the Chair and is not a point of order.

Mr. Grieve: On this vital issue of conscience and principle, I do not know what arrangements pertain on the Government benches tonight, but I am happy to say that on this matter, on which opinion is deeply and not surprisingly divided, we on these benches have a free vote and we shall each vote in accordance with our respective consciences.
I am in disagreement with a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I have already, on Second Reading and in Committee, made my views about the matter plain, and I would not detain the House for one moment when many other hon. Members wish to speak were it not for the fact that, in accordance with my conscience, if there should be a vote on this issue, I intend to go into the Lobby to vote for Clause 10 and against the Amendment.
I appreciate fully, and feel deeply with those who believe, that an institution which has stood the test of centuries is not likely to be tampered with and is not likely to be changed. All institutions, however, must be examined in the light of contemporary circumstances, and the jury as much as any other institution. I believe that when the jury is examined in the light of contemporary circumstances and not, although I listened with enormous interest to the cases outlined by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), in the light of nineteenth century cases, there is a strong case for the change which is set out in the Clause. We live in a time when crime is highly organised and criminal ventures are carried out by men who are applying and perverting their intelligence, highly trained very often, to that purpose.
I agree with those hon. Members who, during the Second Reading debate, this evening, and in Committee, have said that the evidence which has been adduced by the Home Secretary is really very slight. He has adduced some evidence of subornation, interference, corruption and intimidation in London, but where else has there been interference, and is this sufficient to justify interference with the jury principle? I believe that the very nature of the problem is such as to give us only the tip of the iceberg in a matter of this kind. Naturally if there has been successful intimidation, successful subornation, and corruption, there will be no evidence of it because it will be kept underground by those who have perpetrated it, and those who have been the victims, or those who have benefited by it, because they have something to hide.
The fact that there has been what I believe is an alarming number of such cases brought to light indicates that the time has come for very serious consideration whether we should protect society against such malpractices, and the only way we can protect society is by providing for a form of majority verdict.
I believe that a good deal of the opposition to this lies partly in reverence for an established institution which is a bulwark of our way of life, and partly in a confusion between two principles with which we associate the jury.


The first principle is that they should be unanimous. That, I agree, is now to go by the board. If the Clause is accepted, we shall have a verdict by a majority of not less than ten to two, but the other principle which is confused with it—and I have detected such confusion in some of the speeches tonight—is that of the fact that the burden of proof lies on the prosecution and must be made good beyond all reasonable doubt. It will still have to be made good beyond reasonable doubt. At least ten members of the jury will still have to be sure in their consciences of the guilt or innocence of the accused before they can return a verdict accordingly.
During the war—and I said this on Second Reading and I apologise for repeating it—we had verdicts by juries of seven, and we were content. I do not believe that the principle that the juryman has to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt will be cut down by the fact that he will be able to return a verdict by a majority if he is agreed with nine of his fellows.
This change will to a large extent protect the public and society against intimidation and corruption, because while one person may be interfered with, or even two, it is most unlikely that a crook will be able to lay his hands on more than two members of the jury. Secondly, it will provide against the type of disagreement which results from there being a crank on the jury. A crank very often stands out for a conviction when the majority are in favour of an acquittal.
We must from time to time examine our institutions in the light of circumstances prevailing at the time. I believe that when the jury is examined in the light of the circumstances prevailing today, without our minds being clouded by an overdue reverence for great institutions, we will come to the conclusion that this change is justified.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: There are two strands in the argument in opposition to the Clause, both of which have been aired again tonight, as they were in Committee. The first is one which was put in a typically moving and powerful speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), that this is an attack on one of the basic foundations of

the liberties of the subject in this country, and that it is not something that we ought to do lightly.
The other strand of the argument was given by the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) when he said that what we are doing is totally unnecessary since it will affect only a very limited number of cases. Sometimes speakers in opposition to the Clause have confused both arguments, which in my view are quite irreconcilable. Either we are discussing something that is of comparatively little importance because it affects only a few cases, or we are discussing something which affects the great bulwark of our liberty.
In Committee I took the view that the real attitude to take to this reform was that it was a useful little one. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] There was the same kind of reaction in Committee. The only thing that seemed to unite every speaker in Committee—whatever view individuals took—was that it was wrong to regard it as a useful little reform; it was something major, however it was viewed.
But right at the end of the debate the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) introduced figures which had been produced in the analysis by two American academics in Chicago of a study of the American jury system as it operated in five States. The hon. Member is to be praised for introducing into our discussion at that stage a subject which, The Times said, had never previously been put before the Home Secretary. It published an article about three or four weeks afterwards, and that article has now been given wide publicity.
What the Chicago study showed was what I suggested would be the result of the Clause—simply that, generally speaking, there was a decrease of about 40 per cent. in the number of cases where a verdict could not be recorded by reason of disagreement, and a slight increase, in most of the States, in the number of disagreements initially.
The only exception was the State of Oregon, which has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West. In four States out of the five the evidence indicates that I was right in my assessment of the effect of the Clause. We are not discussing the 96 per cent. of cases in which, at the


moment, there is a unanimous verdict. The verdict in those 96 per cent. of cases will be unanimous even after the Clause is passed. The only difference will be in the limited number of cases where there is a disagreement at the moment.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: My hon. Friend is not entitled to say that. The percentage of cases in which a unanimous verdict is ultimately reached must depend to some extent on the jury's being warned that their verdict must be unanimous. When we make this alteration the jury will no longer be so warned; therefore the proportions will change.

Mr. Lyon: If my hon. Friend will wait I will deal with his argument when I come to the Oregon situation, where the evidence tended to confirm my hon. Friend's view that there would be an increase in the number of decisions which are not unanimous.
I was saying that the likely result is that we shall have just about the same number of disagreements, and that of that number a verdict will be recorded in some cases as a result of a majority. That will limit the number of disagreements which require retrials.
10.45 p.m.
Hon. Members have asked what is to happen to the police officer, the civil servant, or the lawyer at whose trial a majority verdict is recorded. What happens to him now when there is a disagreement? What happens to his reputation among his friends when it is said among them that the jury could not agree? It is true that he gets a retrial, but in about 20 per cent. of cases which go to retrial there is still disagreement, so what does he get then? He gets a verdict of acquittal on the direction of the judge after two disagreements, because the prosecution does not think it right to go on with a third trial. What is then his reputation in society? How does he face his partners at work then? Surely the same difficulty is now met which would be met in a situation in which there was a verdict as a result of a majority finding.
It is true that to some extent there may be a reaction, but this is surely a matter of public attitudes. There is no similar reaction in other States where there are majority verdicts and where they have been used for many years. There is no

similar attitude if a police officer on a charge of larceny elects to go for summary trial by the magistrates and he is found not guilty by a verdict of two to one. In those circumstances he is the subject of a verdict where there has been disagreement but there is no reflection upon him among the general public, because the general public accepts that magistrates can reach a majority verdict.
After the passage of time, when the public has become used to majority verdicts, it will simply accept that such a decision in favour of, or against, the accused was on balance the right decision. In every other sphere of our lives we are content to accept majority verdicts. We did so on the issue of whether a man should be hanged. In the House we say that it is only a matter of deciding the way in which the majority wants to go and the country then accepts that view for the time being—although, of course, there is a substantial minority. None the less, the decision having been made, the country accepts that for the time being that is the decision. If this is the kind of way in which we order our lives, why should it be any different in a case before a criminal court?
Experience throughout the world suggests that our attachment to the unanimity rule is not an absolute and indispensable guarantee of our liberty. I therefore return to my point that this is a useful little improvement. I have not changed my view for many years and for me this is not a recent departure brought about by the Home Secretary's view of a number of cases at the Old Bailey. I said in Committee that I was not impressed by the evidence about bribed jurors at the Old Bailey and that it was many years ago when I first took the view that it was rather silly in this sole part of our lives on this sole class of decision that we allowed the veto of one man to take precedence over the decision of 11 others, and that often in the face of the evidence and often on the most flimsy of grounds.
What worries me as much as the possibility of disagreement is that of a compromise decision which satisfies no one. I mentioned in Committee a case, in which I was involved, of the conviction of a man on a lesser charge simply because the jury could not agree on the more serious one—a decision which was not justified on the evidence but because


of which the man is now in prison. A majority verdict would have been much more satisfactory in that case. I accept that it might have been five to seven, and that there might still have been a disagreement, but the appearance of the jury—we all have intuitive knowledge of these matters—made it plain that the decision had been an eleven to one compromise.
The final argument of the opponents of the Clause was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman), that it is likely that, without an insistence on unanimous verdicts there will be a sharp rise in disagreements. That is not likely. There have been five experiments in America, in four of which the pattern emerged which I have described. Only in one was there a rise—of 25 per cent.—in the number of decisions as the result of disagreements.
I tried to find the detailed evidence from Oregon. Curiously, in their large book of results, the authors of the study did not once rely on the results from Oregon, apparently not thinking it of sufficient importance. It is brought into their article in The Times only as a sidewind. In the area of Oregon which supplied the results, there had been only 500 trials, and it is conceivable that such a small number could have produced a freak statistic of a 25 per cent. rise in disagreements.
The pattern shown in the other four States is what will happen here, provided that there are sufficient checks on the new power—and they are contained in the Clause. The court will not accept a majority verdict unless the jury have deliberated for two hours, and the judge will even then be able to send the jury out to reconsider if he thinks that they have not had long enough to debate a long and complicated case. There will inevitably be pressure on them to reach a unanimous verdict, although in the end they could settle for something else.
Judging by the reaction of ordinary Englishmen on these benches, the reaction of an ordinary juryman in any case would be to strive for a unanimous verdict if possible. The Clause will simply allow ten men who are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt on the evidence to overrule the objections of the other

two if they do not consider them to be well-founded.

Mr. Hogg: I rise for three short purposes, two of which I can discharge briefly. The first is to invite the Home Secretary to tell us for how long he proposes to continue tonight. I believe that too many hon. Members want to take part in our proceedings for us rationally to arrive at a conclusion tonight. In any case, I invite the right hon. Gentleman to enter the debate at this stage to indicate, for the convenience of the House, what he intends to do.
The second is to confirm what has been said by my hon. Friends about there being no question of the Whips being on on this side of the House. Every one of my hon. Friends must feel himself absolutely free to arrive at a decision on a matter which, from our point of view, contains no party content and about which only individual opinion must prevail, based partly on experience and partly on conviction. In saying that, I make no suggestions to the party opposite. I realise that the Government are responsible for law and order and that they must come to their own decision on this matter. However, we have arrived at the decision that the vote should be a free one, and I for one shall be expressing views which are not the same as those of all of my hon. Friends.
The third is to give expression to my views shortly, for I am conscious of the fact that I have had two opportunities in the House, and one in Committee, to say exactly what I think on this subject. I do not know whether consistency is a virtue in this matter, but at least I can claim it, whether it be a virtue or the opposite.
When we spoke about this subject in August a number of my hon. Friends, some of them extremely distinguished members of my party, including my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) and the former Solicitor-General, were on the same side as the Lord Chief Justice. I recall that at that time my hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) formed part of that company. I understand that since then they have changed their minds. There is nothing wrong with that and I do not reproach my hon. Friends for doing so; although I should remind those of my


hon. Friends who reproached me in Committee upstairs for forming an unholy alliance with the Home Secretary in this matter that they, too, have a number of unusual allies. At least mine is a highly respectable one.
Having expressed my views before, I will merely summarise them. To begin with, if I thought that the proposal of the Home Secretary would alter the burden of proof in a criminal trial—as has been suggested by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) and at least one of my hon. Friends—I would vote against it. I support it only because I am confident that that is neither intended nor what will be achieved.
When the hon. Member for Oldham, West referred to having purchased Pye shares, he was misdirecting himself about the burden of proof in criminal trials. He was, I suspect, buying Pye shares on the balance of probability. I doubt whether he was so satisfied as to be absolutely sure that they would go up. It is true that 12 jurymen must decide unanimously, but they must—each applying to himself the common sense to which the hon. Member for Oldham, West referred—be directed to apply severally the criterion of proof beyond reasonable doubt. If I thought that it would go forth from this House that, if majority verdicts were to be accepted, jurors were to apply each to himself a totally new and alien burden of proof, I would take a very different view from that which I am taking now.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that it makes a difference to the burden of proof whether one undertakes the onus of convincing every member of the jury or whether one accepts the onus of proving guilt to a majority only?

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman, with the greatest respect to him, is using the words "burden of proof" in two different and equivocal senses. In the sense in which the words are generally understood, whether the tribunal be a single judge or 12 or 24 men, with regard to the standard of certainty which is required of the tribunal, in that sense it makes not a ha'p'orth of difference whether there is unanimity or not. Each man must apply the correct burden to his own conscience.

If I thought that was to be altered, I would not support this proposal.
Secondly, I do not want to criticise the most venerable of our national institutions after the Crown and the Church. I share the enthusiasm of the hon. Member for Oldham, West for the Penn jury who stood out against the Crown. The perverse verdict, as I said in Committee, is one of the palladia of our liberty. But it is not the verdict which is being discussed here. The juries who have acquitted in the face of the executive have not been in disagreement. They have been juries which have united because the judge has overstepped the mark, because the law has been unjust, because prosecuting counsel has been overzealous, because for some reason or other they think an injustice has been done.
If I thought that the right and privilege of a jury to acquit—their absolute prerogative to bring in a verdict of not guilty—would be affected, I would think that it was an unholy alliance which had brought me into agreement with the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary.

Mr. Hale: This argument was put in Italy in 1920 and went on being put till the murder of Matteotti. He was murdered because juries still existed. After his murder, juries went, and the jackboot and the castor oil came.

Mr. Hogg: I was not intending to say this, but I will say it since the hon. Gentleman has put it to me. I share—and I do not want anything that I say to indicate that I do not share—the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for juries, but I cannot accept the view which he developed at great length that countries like Switzerland, Scandinavia and even Scotland are lesser breeds without the law simply because they do not take his view about unanimous verdicts. It is true that many European countries have succumbed to tyranny, but there have been more substantial defences than simply the unanimous verdict of a jury in those countries which have resisted it.
With respect to my fellow countrymen and to my hon. Friends who sometimes disagree with me on this matter, I never cease to be astonished by the extraordinary conservatism, sentimentality and


superstition of the English people. Why are there 12 jurors? Because there are 12 tribes of Israel, 12 months in the year, 12 inches in the foot and 12 apostles. What is the magic in that number? No one could say that if there had been 11 they would not have agreed, or that if there had been 15 they would have agreed.

Dr. Winstanley: And 12 Liberals.

Mr. Hogg: And 12 Liberals. This is the reductio ad absurdum.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) said that this was one of the hinges of justice. With great respect it is not. I do not ask the House to accept what I am trying to say as necessarily infallible, but I ask it to consider the view of Lord Devlin, a great expert on legal history and one who happens to believe in the unanimity rule in criminal cases. Whatever else is true about it, this is not one of our great constitutional rational decisions.
I venture to ask the House a question which I asked before and which has not even been raised by the opponents of this Clause. Why is it rational in this particular instance—I do not say fundamental, but even rational—to allow one vote to veto 11 or two votes to veto 10? The answer is that there is nothing rational about it. This is what Lord Devlin says in his book "Trial by Jury", which has just come out in a new edition:
The rule makes a startling exception to the ordinary processes of English administrative life where decisions, even the most momentous, are almost invariably produced from a majority vote. Why is the verdict of a jury thought to require a degree of assent which for most purposes would be rejected as impracticable? The answer is that no-one ever planned that it should be that way; the rule is simply an antique. Twelve witnesses were required to support the winning party and naturally for that purpose, their testimony had to be unanimous; when the twelve witnesses were translated into judges, the unanimity rule, notwithstanding that its original significance had then departed, remained with them. The rule was clearly settled in 1367, long before the jury was exercising any real judicial function… The retention of the rule is a classic piece of conservatism…
A good thing, conservatism, in its place—
'that preposterous relic of barbarism' Hallam called it.

This is the thing which is bringing tears to our eyes this evening.

Mr. Gilbert Longden: With great humility and respect to my right hon. and learned Friend and to Lord Devlin, is not the reason for the unanimity rule in this case that all of us, including the supporters of this Clause, want convictions to be without reasonable doubt? But if there are two members of a jury who disagree, there certainly is doubt, and I think it fair to say there is reasonable doubt.

Mr. Hogg: I thought I had already disposed of that argument, but as my hon. Friend may not have heard what I said, I shall certainly repeat it. The burden of proof is one thing. Each individual member of the jury must apply his own judgment to whether he is convinced beyond reasonable doubt—that is, satisfied so that he is sure. That remains whether we pass this Clause or not, but a reasonable doubt, as judges tell juries and I say to the House, is nothing more than a doubt from which reasons can be given. The fact that one man out of 12 differs from the other 11, or two out of 12 from the others does not establish that their doubts are reasonable. Reasonable doubts are doubts for which reasons can be given.
What we are concerned with is the notorious fact that if we select a tribunal with a pin, which is what we do in effect when we summon a jury, from time to time we shall get one or two who are not altogether reasonable in their judgments on evidence.

Mr. John Lee: The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that if only two jurors disagree that is no indication of the reasonableness of their disagreement. Would he extend the argument and say that if three, four, or five disagree he would still regard it as no proof of reasonableness?

Mr. Hogg: It could be no proof of the reasonableness. The standard of proof which each member of the jury must apply to himself is one of reasonable doubt. The mere fact of numbers achieves nothing. The question is a matter of judgment of what will make a good criminal tribunal. My judgment is in favour of the Home Secretary's proposal. In the long run, it is a matter of


judgment. In my view, most of this a priori argument against the Home Secretary proposal's we have heard is unconvincing, all the sentimental stuff is wholly irrational, and the belief that there is any magic in 12 is mere superstition.
Because I want my fellow-countrymen to try to introduce into their criminal law, at a time when crime is threatening to undermine the foundations of society, some degree of rationality and to abandon superstition and unreality in their thinking about the criminal and civil law, I support the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: We have now been considering this Clause for about two hours, which is the time specified, and I would not wish—[An HON. MEMBER: "Specified?"]—Yes, specified in the Clause. I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman has not read the Clause which we are debating. But I would not wish to ask the House to arrive at a majority decision without those who wish to speak having an opportunity to express their views. I propose, therefore, in the hope that it would be agreeable to the House generally, that I might now intervene for a few minutes and then, at the end of my speech, we might adjourn, continuing the debate tomorrow afternoon, when, I hope, we shall reach a decision reasonably early.

Mr. John Wells: So far, no hon. Member from the back benches on this side has been called who was not on the Committee. There are many hon. Members on both sides who wish to speak. No one on this side, save my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), has been called who is not a lawyer. The Home Secretary has said that we shall have an opportunity tomorrow, which I accept, but there must be many of us who made particular efforts to be here tonight, on the understanding that we would have an opportunity to debate this matter, who may have inevitable engagements elsewhere tomorrow.

Mr. Jenkins: It is an unusual situation in which the Government offer to allow the House to go home reasonably early and give time to continue the debate the next afternoon, and an hon. Member is sufficiently ungracious to make points at length objecting to it. My impression was that the course I had proposed was

generally acceptable to the House. I believe that to be so.
We have had an extremely interesting and worth while debate on this subject. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) opened it, with his wealth of historical and legal knowledge, interestingly and fairly, so fairly, if I may say so, that I thought that one of the cases he cited tended to be an argument in favour of the majority verdict and not against it.
The hon. and learned Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Crowder) made some of the points which my hon. Friend had made and, as I understood him, added another point which seems to be a surprising argument against majority verdicts. He said that, in practice, majority verdicts had been taking place for a long time, and what he objected to was their coming out into the open. It seems an extraordinary proposition that a majority verdict is all right provided that it is cloaked in a certain amount of hypocrisy but it is not all right when it is stated in open court.

Mr. Crowder: rose—

Mr. Jenkins: I have no doubt that, as the hon. and learned Gentleman presented his argument, that is what he was saying—that in a great number of cases people had come into line against their real views in order to make it possible to arrive at a verdict.

Mr. Crowder: I did not say that at all. I said that, under the present system, a jury works, and is encouraged to work, in accordance with the judgment which I quoted, as a team, as a composite body. Under the new scheme, jurors will be encouraged to disagree, and, if there are four jurors who wish to find a verdict of not guilty, they will say, "We do not own allegiance to what is, in effect, a team and a committee. We are now encouraged to disagree". Two of them will say, "Why should we be the two to disagree?". The net result will be more disagreements.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Jenkins: Members who heard the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that his argument tended strongly towards what I believe to be recognised, that there is a great number of majority verdicts which are presented as unanimous verdicts.
The hon. and learned Gentleman made a great issue about the position of the Lord Chief Justice, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman). It is true that in Committee I quoted a letter which the Lord Chief Justice had sent the Lord Chancellor as an expression of his opinion that the judges were unanimous. I made it clear that that was an expression of his opinion. I do not agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that it reverberated throughout the country. It may have reverberated around the Bar, but as far as I can see it was hardly reported in any newspaper at that time or since.
However, after I had made the statement the Lord Chief Justice no doubt met one or two of the judges to whom the hon. and learned Gentleman referred who expressed a contrary view, and therefore the Lord Chief Justice immediately wrote to me on his own initiative, saying that he was worried about the position and proposed to conduct a poll of the judges individually at the earliest possible moment and report to me the exact results.
He did that in a letter which he wrote to me on 7th March, some few weeks after I had made the speech in Committee. I think it important that the House should be in possession of the full facts of the situation. He said:
Out of 37 Queen's Bench judges, including myself, 25 are wholly in favour of majority verdicts provided that the majority does not fall below 10 to two. In addition, two Queen's Bench judges said that they have not sufficient experience on which to base an opinion and would be prepared to follow the majority. Eight judges are wholly against majority verdicts, several of them having changed their minds since the pros and cons have been ventilated. In addition, one judge who is against majority verdicts would be prepared to see them tried for an experimental period and one judge would be prepared to accept majority verdicts in cases lasting four days or more.
That was a very precise polling of the Queen's Bench judges.

Mr. Crowder: There are more than that.

Mr. Jenkins: We must accept the Lord Chief Justice's ability to tot up the number of Queen's Bench judges, even if we do not accept his views on a point of argument.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I asked my right hon. Friend the direct question whether he had ever sought to take his own poll of the judges. If not, why not?

Mr. Jenkins: Mainly because I have other things to do. It would be most inappropriate for a Minister to conduct individual interviews with judges as though he were canvassing their opinion for and against a particular point of view. I do not think that there is any Member who would take the view that the Lord Chief Justice, having recognised that he somewhat exaggerated the position, and having gone into the matter very carefully and polled the judges individually, would conceivably misrepresent the views of his fellow judges. I do not believe for a moment that my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne would take that view. Therefore, we must accept that letter as an authoritative statement of the position on 7th March, when the Lord Chief Justice wrote to me. It amounts to 27 judges in favour, eight against, and two approximately neutral.

Mr. Carlisle: rose—

Mr. Jenkins: I have given way a great deal and I think that it would now be for the convenience of the House if I concluded my remarks soon.
Some hon. Members—I think that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West in particular—asked why cases of possible interference with jurors, either by bribery or intimidation, were not brought to justice.
Part of the crux of the problem is that it is extremely difficult to detect such interference. By its very nature, almost by definition, it is possible to detect it almost only when it is unsuccessful, and not particularly dangerous, and not when it is successful, and therefore particularly dangerous. I have never attempted to conceal from the House or the Committee that there are not a vast number of cases which can be pointed to as evidence of interference with jurors. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) may well have been right when he referred to the tip of the iceberg.
There have been a number of cases in London, and there were six cases outside


of London, which I cited to the Committee. I do not attempt to say that this is an overwhelming volume of cases. What I do say, and have said on previous occasions, and what I wish to repeat now, is that from the point of view of the crime situation, to which anyone in my position cannot be insensitive, this is a qualitative issue to a greater extent than it is a quantitative issue. This is because the attempt to interfere with jurors is essentially something which takes place in big criminal conspiracy cases, when one is dealing with the really big criminals, and therefore the position cannot be judged by citing percentage figures of the number of jury disagreements or the possible number of false acquittals which may arise.

Sir J. Hobson: I am sure that the Home Secretary will realise that the qualitative argument works the other way. In every treason trial, in every great political trial, the rule of jury unanimity will have been removed.

Mr. Jenkins: I firmly believe that this will not mean that in the great majority of cases one will not continue to have unanimous verdicts, which will be announced as unanimous verdicts, for reasons which I will come to later. I propose that it is right, if the Clause is accepted, that jurors should announce in open court whether their verdict is unanimous, and, if it is not, by what majority it is given.
That is very important from the point of view of seeing how this system works in practice and learning a little more about it. We have been accused of not having done enough inquiry into the work of the jury system. It would be very foolish to introduce this majority system, and then blind ourselves as to how it was working by saying that it could not be announced in what number of cases it worked, or by what majority the verdict was given.
I would also remind the House that there are considerable difficulties about conducting an inquiry into the form of working of the jury system. It was not open to me, or to any other Home Secretary, to conduct a really effective inquiry without breaching a jury principle which many people would regard as just as important and significant as that of unanimity, and that is the principle of jury

secrecy. It would not have been possible to conduct that inquiry without knowing effectively what went on in the jury room.

Mr. Weitzman: The question of "nobbling" of juries was gone into by the Mersey Committee, which dealt with jurors, and it gave a decided view that it did not consider any change should be made in the law

Mr. Jenkins: The Mersey Committee sat many years ago, and in very different circumstances from those confronting us now. We are now confronted with a very different crime wave compared to that in the past. It is certainly the case, if I may continue the point about an inquiry into the jury system—and I am anxious that we should do what research we can into this, and other aspects of the jury system—that we shall have to consider carefully the secrecy point. Some research was done in America by the "bugging" of jury rooms. A very narrow sample was taken, but when it was discovered that this was going on, grave objections were made to the practice and it was stopped.
It is also important that the House should bear in mind that American jury practice is in many ways different from ours in a way which makes it difficult to draw comparisons. There the system whereby one can challenge jurors and question them about their suitability to sit, can result in it taking a very long time to empanel a jury in a major case. One gets a very narrow sample of jurors when one has done that.
There is importance in this point, and I should like, as I did in Committee, to remind the House of a passage by Lord Devlin, who has been quoted this evening in this context. This is from the Hamlin Lectures, when he pronounced on a majority system.
He said then:
But it might be dangerous, so long as the unanimity rule is retained, to equate the jury franchise with the right to vote. No one expects the country to be unanimously in favour of the Conservative Party.
I do not know why he chose the Conservative Party, but he said that the decision must be unanimously for a plaintiff or a defendant. He said:
The approach to unanimity must be helped to some extent by the fact that the jury is drawn from the central bloc of the population. It is difficult to estimate what would be the effect of some diversionary elements, and if


unanimity is insisted upon and the narrower franchise is preferred, it is better that the jury be taken from the middle where safety is more likely to repose".
I think that most of my hon. Friends would not like to see carried into effect something in which there would be certain considerable dangers, but it could be asked if there are dangers in departing from the unanimity rule. Are there equivalent dangers in departing from that?
None of us would wish to do this if we thought that there was any serious increased danger of miscarriages of justice, but it is the case that we have lived within this island for centuries with our unanimity rule while the Scots have lived alongside us with their rule of a bare majority. I am fully aware that there are considerable differences between the English and the Scottish legal codes, but I am bound to tell the House that, having studied the matter most carefully, I am sure that these differences do not affect the question whether the majority verdict is right or not.
I do not say that there are never miscarriages of justice under any system, but I am certain that there have not been greater miscarriages in Scotland than in England. Therefore, I think that one can greatly exaggerate the dangers which may follow from this. One is confronted with a situation in which serious attempts have been, and may still be, made in the future to pervert the course of justice by "nobbling" jurors. In the Committee I said that there was a case which had gone on for some time in which 72 police officers had had to be employed to watch the jury, and in a case which is at present before the courts, no fewer than 82 police officers have been employed continuously since 4th April and may well be employed for many weeks to come in order to keep guard over a jury.
I cannot be indifferent to this fact that considerable numbers of men have to be employed in this way and, with the known shortages of police, nobody would wish to see men used in this way unless it was to make certain that justice was not perverted. Right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House, I know, have strong feelings on this subject and have expressed their views agreeably and honestly in the course of this debate

which we shall continue tomorrow. At the same time, strong arguments should not serve only to make us prisoners of the past, and I think that we shall make our case stronger if, instead of that, we look afresh at this matter in the new circumstances of today.

Debate adjourned.—[Mr. Harper.]

Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.

HONG KONG

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]

11.32 p.m.

Mr. John Rankin: I wish to draw to the attention of the House the constitutional position in Hong Kong. In its turn, that situation provokes many anomalies. The governing authority is completely non-elected. It is composed at executive and legislative levels wholly of officials and nominated persons. I make no challenge against their efficiency or their personal integrity, but they speak and act for a people who have no voice in their election. They have no contact with those whose welfare lies in their hands. They are a dictatorship and represent a type of government which is not tolerable to the British people. Yet we accept it in Hong Kong and our own Government approve, within the Commonwealth, a system which they profess to despise.
In practice, I found that the ordinary citizen of the Colony was not able to submit his grievances by private personal approach to any member of the legislative or executive councils. Public protest about individual or communal wrongs is impossible, because gatherings of more than nine persons are prohibited. Meetings can be arranged for defined purposes under specified auspices, but this rules out spontaneous demonstrations on matters of public importance, an inherent democratic right.
The result of this constitutional setup is that too much power resides in two few hands, which leads to abuses and to corruption. During my visits to Hong Kong I have had many complaints from people who felt that they had been deeply wronged. My attempts to right these wrongs even at home Ministerial level


have never succeeded, and I am not convinced that all of them were without merit, nor am I alone in that view.
Reasons are, of course, advanced for this particular type of non-elected Government. We are told that the population of Hong Kong is divided between the followers of China and Taiwan. The dangers arising from this, in my view, are grossly exaggerated. They were advanced when an attempt was made three years ago to abolish the evils associated with the engaging of seamen for the ships that sail from the Port of Hong Kong, and while difficulties in establishing the new system were encountered in getting the men to co-operate in their own interests, these were overcome, and a fairer system of signing on now operates.
It should also be noted that the 1961 census showed that 40 per cent. of the population of the Colony was under the age of 15 and could have little knowledge, if any, of the October Revolution in 1949 and its consequences and implications. They have been born in Hong Kong, and in all probability have never been to China or to Taiwan. They can rightly be called Hong Kong-ers, and each year sees an increase in their numbers. Soon, they will represent a majority within the Colony. We cannot continue to repress them politically, and, of course, it is quite hypocritical for Britain to condemn those countries which deny democratic rights to their citizens while, at the same time, we pursue exactly the same kind of policy under the Union Jack in this corner of South-East Asia.
Already, it has been tacitly admitted that the existing form of administration in Hong Kong is no longer completely defensible, and some time ago His Excellency the Governor appointed a working party on local administration with the aim of devising a practicable alternative for the development of an effective and convenient system of local administration in Hong Kong which would take account of the size and complexity of the existing urban areas. It will pay attention to the planned creation of new towns in the new territories and the different stages of development in the rural areas; paying particular regard to the types of local authority which might be established. The working party will

pay attention, also, to the composition of these bodies, their powers and functions, their sources of revenue, their staffing, their relationship with Government Departments and, lastly, the degree of control which should be exercised over them by the central Government.
This is all very orderly and planned. Hon. Members on both sides, like me, doubtless, accept the idea of order and planning, but any proposals of this nature must also involve the act of giving and saying what measure of power ought, at the same time, to be surrendered. At this point, however, the working party becomes cautious. There is no suggestion in its report of permitting the popular and elected voice to be heard on the Executive or the Legislative Council. These remain ex officio and nominated. Nor does it sweeten their non-democratic flavour to be told that the procedure in the Legislative Council is based on that of the House of Commons, for membership of those two institutions is attained by methods which are in total conflict.
No one expects this antithesis to be resolved forthwith. It must be recorded that free election to the sovereign body is a basic principle of democracy. The working party's report does not even record this fact, and even admitting that what I am saying may not be completely within the comprehension of the working party, nevertheless, in my view, it should have been dealt with.
This is particularly so since the report submitted by the working party of six persons has brought forth reservations from four about its recommendations. Nevertheless, I welcome the contribution which they have made to the necessary rethinking which must now be embarked upon about government, at local and central level, in Hong Kong. Yet I feel that the vision of the working party has been rather dimmed, for a great deal more than it visualises requires to be done to improve the physical and cultural conditions of the ordinary person in the Colony, in addition to improving his electoral rights.
Nobody needs tell me that. I have seen it for myself. I have also seen the wealth that exists so abundantly in Victoria Island and Kowloon. No one would dare contend that all those who helped to create it share fully in its distribution.
If the progress so openly manifest in Hong Kong is to be maintained full cooperation from all the people is necessary.

Mr. John Tilney (Liverpool, Waver-tree): Does not the hon. Member agree that under the new electorate of the local urban council as many as 300,000 could be on the register, and yet only 25,000 have seen fit to put their names on the register? In fact, there are 5,000 fewer than on the original one.

Mr. Rankin: I am sorry that in the time available I cannot be drawn aside from the tenor of my remarks, but, to begin with, I do not accept the urban council. However, I shall not say more about that now.
I was saying that if the progress so openly manifest in Hong Kong is to be maintained, then full co-operation from all the people is necessary. This means that they must be identified in every way with the future of their homeland and its prosperity. That is the point at which the working party, the urban council and all other organisations, statutory and non-statutory, can play their part. Most of all, the Government, themselves, in my view and in that of many other people in Hong Kong, are far too selfish; for the simple reason that they keep too much power to themselves. Yet that very fact confers on them a greater responsibility to establish the conditions which make orderly progress possible and to provide the educational groundwork on which a democratic society can be built.
The Hong Kong Government must come down from Olympus, and bring their people into their councils; give them the feeling of belonging; which they do not possess now. That would be the strongest defence which the Government could build against the external dangers which they fear.
In fairness, I must point out that those dangers come from quarters not always mentioned. The difficulties provoked by conflicting ideologies are not disputed, but they are not eased by the presence of ships of war in Victoria Harbour, nor by the aircraft carrier which I saw last October lying off the New Territories and covering Canton. These American vessels were anchored in territorial waters giving offence to China and violating British and Hong Kong neutrality in the war now

being waged in Vietnam. True, the soldiers of the United States are coming to Hong Kong for rest and refreshment, and that is a worthy reason for bringing them to the Colony, but surely they could have been transported in civilian craft when their visit is wholly peaceful.
If trouble comes to the Colony, it can arise from sources other than those in Taiwan or China. It might originate from the grip which the United States is now getting in Victoria and Kowloon. Her consulate harbours the biggest spy agency in South-East Asia numbering about 600, and when they are not engaged in their favourite game of China-watching, they are interfering in the legitimate business of Hong Kong merchants in order to influence them against trading with China. In my view, one step towards stopping these malpractices would be to give the people of Hong Kong a say in running their own affairs after their own fashion and for the benefit, not just of a few, but for all the people in the Colony. It is to that course that I would ask my hon. Friend to dedicate herself tonight.

11.50 p.m.

The Minister of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mrs. Judith Hart): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) for providing this further opportunity to discuss Hong Kong. We do not often have such an opportunity. We last had an Adjournment debate on the subject—as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) will recall—some weeks ago, but we can rarely discuss the Colony's problems at length.
For many years, my hon. Friend has closely concerned himself with Hong Kong's problems, and has continually stimulated the interest of the House in them. I know how many friends he has there, and, as he has shown tonight, how well he knows its politics and its perplexities. I was glad to hear his remarks about the integrity of the Government officials there, which I warmly underline. We all hold in high regard the Governor and the Colonial Secretary and their staffs.
My hon. Friend's last point was very important, as there is a genuine misunderstanding about the matter. It should be understood that Hong Kong is an important centre for air and sea communications and that visits from foreign aircraft and


vessels—civil and military—are quite normal, as it is that foreign nationals should go there for leave and recreation. This is nothing new. It has been the practice for many years for troops from all South-East Asia to use Hong Kong as a leave centre. Because, in the last year or two, United States Servicemen on leave have been so well superintended, disciplined and rich, they have been welcome, and Hong Kong has been inclined to say, "Come back again."
But Hong Kong is in no way being used as a base by United States forces for military operations against North Vietnam. There are no United States installations or facilities of a warlike nature there and no repair facilities for U.S. ships have ever been asked for or given. Nor do they receive any other services or facilities than those of normal hospitality for foreign troops arriving on foreign ships. I am watching this closely, but, at the moment, see no reason why this should cause undue alarm in any quarter.
I have not yet been able to visit Hong Kong, but greatly look forward to the pleasure. But my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary was there only last month, when he discussed many local issues and saw a good deal of local industry. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, when Colonial Secretary, was there in August and November last year. The Government are, therefore, well aware of Hong Kong's problems and the steps which need to be taken.
To put the matter in perspective, I was going to mention some of the Colony's achievements during the last few years, because we tend to talk much more about its problems than about its achievements. In spite of my hon. Friend's criticisms of certain aspects of life there, I think that he is well aware of the tremendous efforts of the Government there to cope with the population explosion and the problems of housing and education. Even though they have not solved all the problems, they have made tremendous efforts to that end and have achieved a great deal.
In view of the time, I will spend the remaining moments of this debate in dealing with the central problem of the constitutional development of Hong Kong. We start from a recognition of the fact that Hong Kong is quite

different from any other of our Colonies. As I said in a previous debate—and I know that my hon. Friend will disagree with me, but I must express it as my view—because of Hong Kong's special position, it is not possible to think of normal self-government in terms of an elected Legislative Council. But this does not mean that we cannot envisage a considerable and meaningful extension of democracy at the local government level.
In my view, the Report of the Working Party on Local Administration, published in February, to which my hon. Friend referred, is of immense value. It is an excellent outline of the possibilities that are open for a decisive advance in local government in Hong Kong, in terms of functions and of democratic participation. I was impressed when I read the Report because it is clear that the Working Party has looked in depth at patterns of local government in Britain and elsewhere which might be helpful in finding the right solutions for the special conditions of Hong Kong.
Frankly, I believe it to be one of the best dissertations on local government in general and I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that the great depth of its analysis of what happens in Britain and elsewhere and what the possibilities may be is extremely interesting. At the same time, the Working Party has drawn attention to the special needs and peculiarities of the Hong Kong situation. It draws special attention to the fact that out of a population of just under 4 million people, 3 million live in built-up areas adjacent to the harbour, embracing the conurbation of Hong Kong, Kowloon and New Kowloon with very high population densities. It points out that although Hong Kong is a small place, in some of the urban areas the population density is as high as 5,000 persons per acre, among the highest in the world, while, at the same time, the population includes many differing groups of Chinese as well as other races.
The Report considers the types of local authorities which might be established and the criteria which might govern their establishment. It is not an easy matter, for in spite of its small size, it comprises several distinct component parts and these could not be fitted into the pattern applicable to England and Wales. The Report suggests that there might be three


local authorities for the main urban areas, each with a population of about 1 million, and all three included in nine square miles.
Apart from the Greater London Council, only the City of Birmingham has a population exceeding 1 million. In England and Wales there are, as the Report states, 48 non-county boroughs with populations of less than 5,000. But more than 5,000 people may live in a single tenement building in Kowloon, and a local council for one or two tenement blocks can scarcely be considered a practicable solution. I mention these points to indicate that there are a number of difficult factors which require careful thought, and this is one of them.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) mentioned the apparent lack of public interest and the fact that only about 26,000 people registered when the franchise for the existing urban council was enlarged to 240,000 people. However, hon. Members will agree that there are obviously new factors to be considered in this situation. One is that if one has a council with very limited functions, it cannot be expected to evoke the same degree of public interest as one with wider functions which touch more closely on the various aspects of people's lives.
Although we may point to that from the point of view of the past, it should not necessarily be the guideline for what will happen in the future, with enlarged local authorities with new functions. My hon. Friend pointed out that there is a growing population in Hong Kong which is young and that, therefore, there are likely to be new ideas and interests. That is why we need not be dismayed by what has happened in the past.
The Report covers the powers and functions which local authorities might have. My hon. Friend did not do justice to the Report because he did not mention that some of the new functions will be vastly more extensive than the present limited ones. Some of the functions would be mandatory; others would be permissive. They include, for example—and I am only selecting some—running maternity homes, ante-natal and postnatal clinics and a health visiting service; the provision and operation of adult education, the provision of libraries,

museums and recreational facilities and all aspects of entertainment. It covers the provision of personal services like homes for the aged, infants' crèches, and functions related to transport, liquor licences, the control of shops and commercial establishments and a number of functions normally associated here with a public health department.

Mr. Rankin: Will my hon. Friend assure me that she is not committing herself to the Report?

Mrs. Hart: No, I am not committing myself to the Report, for obvious reasons. The Report has been published so that there can be full opportunity in Hong Kong for public consideration of the matters which the Report sets out.
Before decisions are made, we want to take the fullest possible account of the views of the people of Hong Kong. We want to take account of any further proposals which local organisations or local bodies in the Colony may wish to make. I am sure that it is better to arrive at conclusions which will be generally acceptable to the public rather than build up something quickly which might wither away later. The Report itself says:
It is men, not buildings, which make a city.
My hon. Friend will remember that quotation.
It would be wrong of me to try to prejudge what local opinion in Hong Kong will feel and say about the Report, whether the majority will feel that the ideas that it presents are on the right lines—the report is not unanimous; four members signed it subject to reservations—or whether they will share the views expressed by my hon. Friend. We cannot prejudge this issue. What we can do, as a House, is to welcome the publication of the Report as a highly interesting and valuable study of the further possible development of democracy in Hong Kong, and we can express the hope that there will be real and genuine—

The Question having been proposed after half-past Nine o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at two minutes past Twelve o'clock.